Skip to content

Applicability of business tax where operations limited

There is no obligation upon a municipality to reduce a business tax due to limited operations secondary to the COVID-19 pandemic.

A municipality does, however, have the discretion to offer business tax relief. If a municipality were to consider such a policy, they should seek further legal advice in preparing the necessary resolutions to insulate itself from claims of ultra vires or discrimination.

Analysis

Municipalities have no obligation to reduce business taxes due to limited operations

Section 120 of the Municipalities Act (“Act”) reads as follows (emphasis added):

    1. A council shall impose an annual tax, to be known as “the business tax”, on all businesses carrying on business in the municipality.

This mandates that Towns impose a business tax on businesses within the municipality. Paragraph 2(1)(c) of the Act defines “business” in a broad and completely non-restrictive manner as follows (emphasis added):

    1. (1) In this Act

(c) “business” includes

(i) a commercial, merchandising or industrial activity or undertaking,

(ii) a profession, trade, occupation, calling or employment,

(iii) an activity which provides goods or services, and

(iv) a credit union, co-operative, corporation, sole proprietorship or association of persons,

whether or not it is for profit

Taking together the requirement for a municipality to charge a business tax and the broad definition of business, then the default rule for municipalities should always be to charge a business tax.

The question arising then is where businesses are limited from operating due to restrictions secondary to the COVID-19 pandemic, is there an obligation for municipalities to reduce business taxes since individual businesses are no longer “carrying on business”?

Based on the statutory provisions above, there is no such obligation. The discretion of a municipality to waive such a tax is a separate matter that is discussed later in this client update.

This conclusion is supported by Petty Harbour-Maddox Cove (Town) v Peerless Fish Co.¹ In that case, a fish processing company operated as a seasonal business and argued its business taxes should be reduced to about 25% of the tax, which was approximately the proportion of the tax relative to the percentage of the year it was in operation. The Court relied upon section 120 of the Municipalities Act and found municipalities are under no obligation to impose taxes in a particular fashion to meet the particularities of “any business” (emphasis added):

22        I was not referred to any authority for the proposition that the Town had an obligation to treat seasonal businesses differently. While it would certainly be advantageous from the perspective of the business to have its seasonal nature taken into account, and it might be good economic policy for the Town to encourage such businesses, it appears to me that there is no obligation on the Town to do so. I prefer the view that the Town has the right to impose tax, and is not obligated to impose it in a particular fashion to meet the peculiarities of any business. It may make good business sense to support economic activity in the town, but based on my reading of the legislation, it may impose the tax without reference to the seasonal nature of the business.²

This conclusion also makes sense from a policy perspective. The threshold is whether the entity is “carrying on business” – not the portion of the year that the business is in operation. By way of example, a store that that is opened on Sundays is not charged more business tax than one that is not. Or a business that opens at night is not charged more than a business that only operates during the day.

It is quite different, however, if a business stops operating entirely. While Peerless Fish stands for the proposition that the time of operation is irrelevant in the determination of business tax, section 120 of the Act states that the tax may only be applicable to businesses “carrying on business” in the municipality. Therefore, should any business’ operation cease for an entire tax year, then they are not liable for business taxes at all.

Municipalities have the discretion to reduce business tax, but must not discriminate

Section 111 of the Act provides municipalities with a mechanism through which it may reduce the business tax:

111      (1) A person may apply to a council for, and the council may, by a vote of 2/3 of the councillors in office, grant an exemption, remission or deferment of taxes and interest on the taxes, either in whole or in part, for those periods of time that the council decides and the council may determine the evidence which it shall require to warrant the exemption, remission or deferment.

(2) A council may, by a vote of 2/3 of the councillors in office, enter into tax agreements and offer tax incentives which vary existing rates of tax.

While there is no obligation on a municipality to reduce business taxes due to the COVID-19 pandemic, section 111 above provides a mechanism whereby a council may, in its discretion, create an exception to taxes they are otherwise obligated to charge, so long as they obtain a 2/3 majority vote of the council. Further, the council may only provide these reductions based on “evidence” warranting the exemption. Council has discretion in determining the evidence required.

That discretion is not limitless, especially when discrimination is at issue.³ In order to avoid discrimination issues, the policy would have to be carefully crafted, and the municipality would have to apply it objectively. The policy, then, would serve as the evidentiary basis required under section 111 of the Act to warrant an exemption, remission, or postponement of business tax.

Section 111 refers to a “person”, meaning each case would have to be considered on its own merits. In other words, the council cannot simply issue a resolution in respect of its policy and then begin applying it – the council would have to satisfy itself that each applicant has met the objective criteria depicted in the policy and then explicitly vote to approve the application.

If a municipality were to consider tax relief under section 111 of the Act, it should seek further legal advice in respect of drafting its policy and how best to apply it to insulate the municipality from claims of ultra vires or discrimination.


¹ 2005 NLTD 187, 2005 Carswell Nfld 299 [Peerless Fish].

² Ibid at 22.

³ In Peerless Fish the Court enunciated the principles applicable to tax discrimination in the municipal context:

29 From the Long Harbour analysis I take two principles: first, that without explicit statutory authority, the municipality is not authorized to treat taxpayers in the same category differently; second, the issue of good faith is irrelevant to a finding of discrimination. Since there has been no assertion of a statutory power to discriminate, then it is clear the Town is not authorized to do so.


This article is provided for general information only. If you have any questions about the above, please contact a member of our Municipal group.

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership articles and updates.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Countdown to Cannabis: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter: The legalization of cannabis: 7 reasons why employers should take notice

May 24, 2018

Brian G. Johnston, QC Cannabis legalization is coming. The legislation is expected to pass by July with legalization becoming effective by September. Employers should take notice because: 1. There is already a lot of cannabis…

Read More

Client Update: Negligence: what is reasonably foreseeable?

May 24, 2018

Janet Clark and Sean Seviour A recent decision from the Supreme Court of Canada clarifies determination of what is “reasonably foreseeable”: Rankin (Rankin’s Garage & Sales) v J.J., 2018 SCC 19.  The case involved two…

Read More

Client Update: Limitation periods & denial of LTD benefits: the NSSC decision in Cameron

May 9, 2018

Jennifer Taylor & Michelle Chai A recent Supreme Court decision tackled two issues that have proven complex in Nova Scotia law: summary judgment and limitation periods. The Plaintiff in Cameron v Nova Scotia Association of…

Read More

Client Update: Medical marijuana found to be undue hardship in safety sensitive positions – the problem of residual impairment

May 1, 2018

Brian G. Johnston, QC The Arbitrator in Lower Churchill Transmission Construction Employers’ Association and IBEW, Local 1620 dismissed a grievance on April 30, 2018 concluding: The Employer did not place the Grievor in employment at…

Read More

Client Update: Benefits plans really do not have to cover the sun, the moon and the stars (and medical cannabis)

April 13, 2018

Rick Dunlop and Richard Jordan Employers, and benefit providers on their behalf, make policy decisions as to what drugs or benefits (including monetary limits) will be covered by benefit plans. The Board of Trustees in…

Read More

Client Update: Court Confirms: Credibility is a Key Factor In Personal Injury Awards (Ryan V. Curlew, 2018 NL SC)

April 10, 2018

Erin Best The decision of Justice Handrigan in Ryan v. Curlew is the first motor vehicle accident personal injury decision to come out of the Newfoundland and Labrador courts in quite some time. The case…

Read More

Client Update: Does your business need a spring privacy tune-up? Breach reporting and Europe’s GDPR are about to hatch

April 6, 2018

Rob Aske The arrival of spring should bring thoughts of renewal… to your privacy practices. Breach reporting under PIPEDA Canada’s federal privacy law known by the acronym PIPEDA (Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act)…

Read More

Client Update: Untenable tenure: discrimination complaint from Indigenous professor dismissed

March 22, 2018

Chad Sullivan Overview An Indigenous law professor filed a human rights complaint against the University of British Columbia claiming the university discriminated against her in failing to consider her less traditional scholarly work as akin…

Read More

Client Update: Federal Cannabis Act regulations taking shape: consultation feedback revealed

March 22, 2018

Rick Dunlop and Kevin Landry The Federal government has released a new report titled: Proposed Approach to the Regulation of Cannabis: Summary of Comments Received During the Public Consultation (the “new report”) which outlines the…

Read More

Client Update: Is the $15 per hour minimum wage headed East? A look at Atlantic Canadian wage increases for 2018

March 21, 2018

Sean Kelly and Michelle Black Employers across Canada are facing a series of recently-announced plans for substantial minimum wage hikes in several provinces. Notably, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia have all committed to raising their minimum…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top