c o l le c t o r s ’ c o r n e r “i’ll see you in court!”
I
recall when a taxpayer who refused to pay the penalty said to me “I’ll see you in court!” and walked out. My first reaction – panic – I better get a lawyer! But wait, Saanich has a municipal lawyer. First of all he assured me that a municipal employee, including the collector, cannot be sued because of being indemnified by the municipality. The taxpayer would have to sue the municipality. Then we discussed the specific circumstances. I felt a lot better! “Bring it on!” One of the many responsibilities we have as municipal tax collectors is to enforce the legislation regarding property taxation. On the surface, reading and applying the legislation may seem quite straight forward. Over the years there have been relatively few court cases which required that the legislation be clarified as to its application. However, on occasion the courts have resolved questions as to how certain legislation applies. Here are a few of them: • Catalyst Paper Corp v Port Alberni, Campbell River, Powell River, North Cowichan (2012) – issues: ability to pay, benefits received – clarified the authority of council to set tax rates. • Younger/Taylor v District of Taylor (2006) – issue: the duty to impose a penalty. The judge stated “The
legislation does not afford the municipality or collector any discretion in relation to penalty. There is no exception to the clear rule that the collector must impose a penalty on amounts outstanding after the due date.” • Rivtow Straits Ltd v Prince Rupert (1981) – clarified when the due date ends, that is at the end of the day (11:59 p.m.) • Gray v Langley Twp (1986) – clarified tax sale “manifest error”. The judge also stated “Where the result of the tax sale process is the loss of the property by the owner, any ambiguity should be resolved in favour of the land owner.” • Montreal (City) v Montreal Port Authority (2010) – clarified that the Crown must use municipal tax rates. • Halifax (Regional Municipality) v Canada (PW & Gov’t Services) (2012) – clarified that the Crown must use valid valuations. (Also Nav Canada Inc v Assessors of Areas 01, 15, 17 & 21) • McQuarrie Bros Motors Ltd v Campbell River (2018) – clarification regarding tax sale Notification. • Prince George (City) v Columbus Hotel Company (2011) – clarified who the “owner” is during the tax sale redemption period. • Maple Ridge (2020) – Declaration that their tax sale was invalid. • Eurig Estate v Attorney General of Ontario (1998) – clarified that the
amount of a fee must not exceed the cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged. • Westwood Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses v Coquitlam (2006) – issue: application for permissive tax exemption clarified that procedural fairness is required for a permissive tax exemption application. Based on these and other court cases, we have clarity how to apply the legislation. Also, last year due to COVID, the collectors had several discussions with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and municipal solicitors regarding the interpretation of the basic property tax legislation we’ve be using all these years without question. This all helps us do our job better. So the next time a taxpayer said “I’ll see you in court.” I said “No problem” and went for a coffee break.
DOUG STEIN has worked in municipal finance for over 30 years. In 2011 he retired from his position as Manager of Revenue Services for the District of Saanich. Doug leads the Collectors’ Forum, is a GFOABC Life Member, and a CPA, CMA.
DECEMBER 2021 • DOLLARS & SENSE PERSPECTIVE | 9
