Summary

Keywords

None.

Summary

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Courts – Jurisdiction – Equity – Relief – Taxation – Municipal taxation scheme that deems proceeds of tax sale paid into court forfeited if no person claims entitlement after one year – Respondent seeking relief from forfeiture outside one-year limitation period – Does s. 98 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, permit courts to re-write municipal tax codes? – Should courts be able to grant relief from forfeiture imposed by statute? – Is there any limitation to the application of s. 98 of the Courts of Justice Act? – In the alternative, if courts are permitted to grant relief only in exceptional cases, then what amounts to an exceptional case? – What principles govern the application s. 98 of the Courts of Justice Act to provide relief against the consequences of missing a statutory deadline? – Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, s. 380(6).

The respondent Poplar Point First Nation Development Corporation, a not-for-profit corporation supporting Poplar Point First Nation Band and its members, was in municipal tax arrears with respect to one of its properties located in the City of Thunder Bay. The City took the necessary steps under the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, to sell the taxpayer’s land to recover the tax arrears, including registration of a tax arrears certificate against title, and sending a notice of registration of the certificate and then a final notice to the Development Corporation. The Development Corporation did not respond, and the City sold the property in a municipal tax sale. After recovering $5,843.11 in tax arrears and additional related costs, the City paid into court the surplus (an amount exceeding $76,000).

Pursuant to s. 380(4) of the Act, the Development Corporation had one year from the date of payment of the surplus into court to bring an application for payment out of court. Otherwise, s. 380(6) deems the monies to be forfeited to the City. The Development Corporation applied to the court three weeks after the one-year deadline, seeking relief from forfeiture. The City brought a counter-application, seeking payment out of court of the monies.

Lower Court Rulings