Many real estate lawyers doing residential real estate no
doubt deal with first time home buyers. First-time homebuyers are
entitled to a rebate of land transfer tax.
In order to qualify for the rebate, the owners must never have
owned a residential property anywhere in the world.
The rules appear to be as follows:
The maximum amount of the refund is $2,000.00. In order to
obtain a refund, the purchaser must be at least 18 years of age;
must occupy the home as its principal residence within 9 months of
the date of transfer; cannot have ever owned an eligible home or an
interest in an eligible home anywhere in the world.
In addition, if the purchaser has a spouse, the spouse cannot
have owned an eligible home or an interest in an eligible home
anywhere in the world while being the spouse of the purchaser.
Spouses are defined pursuant to section 29 of the Family
In a recent matter, a rebate was claimed by a purchaser. The
lawyer who acted apparently took instructions from the client and
made the application on the client's behalf after closing.
Subsequently, it was determined by the Ministry that the client was
not entitled to the rebate and the Ministry issued a Notice of
Assessment. The client repaid the $2,000.00 to the Ministry.
The Ministry has laid charges against the homebuyer under the
Ontario Provincial Offences Act. Shockingly, the Ministry
has also laid charges under the Ontario Provincial Offences
Act against the lawyer who submitted the application on the
basis that he assisted or facilitated in a breach of the provisions
of the Land Transfer Tax Act.
The facts of the case are fairly straightforward. In 2003, the
lawyer acted for a father and his daughter on the purchase of a
home. In 2009, the daughter bought a new home with her husband and
the lawyer acted for them on that purchase. The lawyer believed
that even though the daughter was on title to the first home, he
did not think that she was the beneficial owner of the property. He
concluded that she was not a true owner as contemplated by the
legislation and that she could sign the first time homebuyer's
statement. In 2013, a Notice of Reassessment was issued and
forwarded to the client advising that she was not a qualified
first-time buyer and requested the additional tax. She paid the
additional tax and a subsequent notice of assessment for unpaid
interest. Notwithstanding, the lawyer has since been served with a
summons by the Ministry charging him under the Land Transfer
Tax Act for assisting in the making of a false statement.
Apparently, the charge for making a false statement is not a
mens rea offence and the maximum fine under the section is
$2,000.00. The client has also been charged despite paying the
rebate and interest.
There appears to be some policy where a registered co owner
holding in trust for a beneficial owner will not be deemed to have
owned the property, and that appears to have been the lawyer's
understanding regarding the 2003 transaction. Lawyers might do well
when acting for clients who may be going on title to property for
estate planning purposes, or where required by a lender for
financing purposes to be on title but who have never owned a
property before, to document a trust in favour of a beneficial
owner in order to avoid the possibility of losing entitlement to
the first-time homebuyers refund. Lawyers acting for new home
purchasers might do well to protect themselves in regard to
ensuring eligibility and documenting it.
I can appreciate that the Ministry is charged with the task of
collections but to lay quasi-criminal charges against the lawyer
might seem excessive. The charge under section 24 of the
Provincial Offences Act relates to the following
"being an agent for a transferee under the provisions of
the Land Transfer Tax Act make or assist in making a statement in
an application for a refund under section 9.2 of the said Act, or
in a document provided to the Minister in connection therewith,
that was false or misleading such being an offence pursuant to
subsection 9(5) of the said Act."
To charge lawyers even quasi-criminally for facilitating in the
preparation of a false statement where there is no actual knowledge
or intent seems to me to be outrageous. Be warned.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that courts will generally support and uphold decisions of condominium directors because they are better positioned than judges to make decisions pertaining to their buildings.
According to the city bylaws in Calgary, the grading of lots for new buildings must be done properly so that the water never flows toward the new building or any other nearby properties, but away from those buildings.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).