A West Point Grey property valued at more than $24 million will have its 麻豆传媒映画municipal vacancy tax assessment reviewed.
B.C. Supreme Court Justice Janet Winteringham said the city assessed owner Belmont Nominee Ltd. $344,970 for the vacancy tax for the 2018 taxation year.
The judge said decisions of a city review officer and review panel were flawed and cannot stand.
“I agree with Belmont that the decisions of the review officer and the review panel do not display the required internally coherent and logical chain of analysis that would allow the reviewing court to understand how they arrived at their interpretations,” the judge said in her Dec. 22 ruling.
She quashed both decisions.
At issue is the city’s 2016 vacancy tax, implemented to address the housing shortage. It levied the tax on properties left vacant for a period of time. There are some exemptions, including properties undergoing redevelopment.
Belmont was registered in the Land Title Office as the owner of the property at 4769 Belmont Ave. in July 2000. The land is in one of the city’s most expensive neighbourhoods.
The property remains bare land, the judge said.
In 2018, however, Belmont began plans to build a house, contracted an architect and applied for a city development permit application on Aug. 8 of that year.
The city did a tax audit on the land and decided it did not qualify for a 2018 tax exemption, as the permit application had not been filed by July 1, 2018.
Belmont complained, saying it had met its requirements and was adding housing. A city review officer rejected this, saying the land was not occupied. The city said the land only met requirements from August to December and did not qualify for the exemption.
Belmont failed to persuade the vacancy tax review officer and the subsequent vacancy tax review panel that it should qualify for an exemption even though redevelopment of the property was underway.
Belmont claimed the decisions were unreasonable and sought court orders quashing the decisions and a declaratory order that the property qualified for the exemption.
Alternatively, Belmont sought for the matter to be returned for review.
The city tendered a new version of the bylaw in court.
Belmont objected.
The judge agreed, saying that bylaw version was not before the review officer or panel and therefore not part of the record underlying the case before the court.
But, said the judge, “the city’s own website contradicts the position it has taken in this case.”
“I am satisfied that the decisions of the review officer and the review panel cannot stand,” the judge said. “That is, Belmont has demonstrated that the decisions are unreasonable.”
The judge said Belmont was entitled to court costs in the case.
