Here the court considers the Assessment Act's meaning of 'ownership':
1b: Did the Board err in its interpretation of “owner” under s. 45.3.1 (6) of the Regulation?
[31] TSCC 2279 submits that the Board erred in law by failing to find that only the current owner of the property can file a declaration under s. 45.3.1(6) due to what it describes as “language of limitation.”
[32] I disagree. The logic of the appellant’s submission depends on a finding that a change of status in the hotel units arises from a change in ownership. It argues that the intention of the definition is to require the current owner to file a declaration because the previous owner is only an owner until the point of transfer. This submission rests on the assumption that a prior declaration becomes void on transfer, which the Board did not find to be the case based on a plain reading of s. 45.1.3.
[33] Here neither of the successor condominium corporations filed any declaration after assuming ownership of the 16 units. The Board found that at the time that Talon was the owner, it filed the declaration which stated that the 16 units “will be” a hotel unit, “during the 2011 tax year and subsequent years.” It did so prior to June 30 of 2010, which had the effect of designating the 16 units as “hotel units” for 2011 and subsequent years.
[34] The Board’s findings are supported by the evidence. The Board found that a declaration was filed by the “owner” as to the 16 units in question, and in applying s. 45.3.1(6) it did not fall into error.
The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.
