Supreme Court decision good for Toronto, great news for our waterfront
Community Air Media Release, April 15, 2010:
The Supreme Court of Canada decided today that:
The PILT Act (1) and the Regulations require that the [municipal property] tax rate be
calculated as if the federal property were taxable property belonging to a private
owner (2).
This decision binds every federal agency. It is especially important to Toronto, as the
Toronto Port Authority has, since its creation in 1999 refused to pay its fair share of
property taxes to the City of Toronto. According to its most recent financial statements
(3), the arrears amount to some $39,588,000 to the end of 2008.
It is important for the TPA to pay its taxes, like any other property owner. This affirms that
obligation. This is very good news for the City of Toronto, and great news for our
waterfront.
This is Lisa Raitt’s legacy – she was the CEO when the decision was made to not pay
property taxes to the City, and instead to do everything possible to avoid paying them,
anticipating that the City would not put up a fight.
To the City’s credit, it did put up a fight, steadily and doggedly pursuing the TPA through
the labyrinthian PILTs appeal process within the Federal government, and joining in this
appeal by the City of Montreal as a intervenor.
This very likely puts paid to any thought of the Island Airport tunnel, as the TPA will be
scrambling to sell assets to pay those arrears. It also adds major new costs to Porter’s
operation, as the property taxes payable on 215 acres of downtown property will be very significant.
A bailout from the federal government isn’t possible, given section 25 of the Canada Marine
Act:
No appropriation
25. Even if the port authority or subsidiary is an agent of Her Majesty in right of
Canada as provided under section 7, no payment to a port authority or a wholly-
owned subsidiary of a port authority may be made under an appropriation by
Parliament to enable the port authority or subsidiary to discharge an obligation or
liability unless
(a) the payment
(i) is made under the Emergencies Act or any other Act in respect of
emergencies,
(ii) is a contribution in respect of the capital costs of an infrastructure
project,
(iii) is a contribution in respect of environmental sustainability, or
(iv) is a contribution in respect of security, or
(b) the authority for the funding of Her Majesty’s obligations is an agreement that was in
existence before March 1, 1999.
None of these exceptions apply.
1. Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act
2. Montréal (City) v. Montreal Port Authority, 2010 SCC 14 at para. 40
3. Found at http://www.torontoport.com/REPORTS/Finance_2008_ENG.PDF
The Supreme Court of Canada decided today that:
The PILT Act (1) and the Regulations require that the [municipal property] tax rate be
calculated as if the federal property were taxable property belonging to a private
owner (2).
This decision binds every federal agency. It is especially important to Toronto, as the
Toronto Port Authority has, since its creation in 1999 refused to pay its fair share of
property taxes to the City of Toronto. According to its most recent financial statements
(3), the arrears amount to some $39,588,000 to the end of 2008.
It is important for the TPA to pay its taxes, like any other property owner. This affirms that
obligation. This is very good news for the City of Toronto, and great news for our
waterfront.
This is Lisa Raitt’s legacy – she was the CEO when the decision was made to not pay
property taxes to the City, and instead to do everything possible to avoid paying them,
anticipating that the City would not put up a fight.
To the City’s credit, it did put up a fight, steadily and doggedly pursuing the TPA through
the labyrinthian PILTs appeal process within the Federal government, and joining in this
appeal by the City of Montreal as a intervenor.
This very likely puts paid to any thought of the Island Airport tunnel, as the TPA will be
scrambling to sell assets to pay those arrears. It also adds major new costs to Porter’s
operation, as the property taxes payable on 215 acres of downtown property will be very significant.
A bailout from the federal government isn’t possible, given section 25 of the Canada Marine
Act:
No appropriation
25. Even if the port authority or subsidiary is an agent of Her Majesty in right of
Canada as provided under section 7, no payment to a port authority or a wholly-
owned subsidiary of a port authority may be made under an appropriation by
Parliament to enable the port authority or subsidiary to discharge an obligation or
liability unless
(a) the payment
(i) is made under the Emergencies Act or any other Act in respect of
emergencies,
(ii) is a contribution in respect of the capital costs of an infrastructure
project,
(iii) is a contribution in respect of environmental sustainability, or
(iv) is a contribution in respect of security, or
(b) the authority for the funding of Her Majesty’s obligations is an agreement that was in
existence before March 1, 1999.
None of these exceptions apply.
1. Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act
2. Montréal (City) v. Montreal Port Authority, 2010 SCC 14 at para. 40
3. Found at http://www.torontoport.com/REPORTS/Finance_2008_ENG.PDF
Comments