Blair disagreed with how the Lower Nipit Improvement District (the District) was applying its tax bylaw to the strata he lived in. Blair believed the entire strata should be charged the tax rate and not each unit individually, and as such, he refused to pay his taxes. Blair also said that he did not receive a formal notice of assessment regarding his taxes and that there wasn’t any type of appeal mechanism, which he felt was unfair. Eventually the District collected the amount Blair owed in taxes when Blair’s property was sold.

Our investigation into Blair’s complaint focused on two fairness issues:

1. Whether it was fair and legal for the District to tax the strata as individual units under the applicable legislation.
2. If the tax process that the District was following was fair and reasonable.

Regarding the first issue, and as provided in section 67 of the Strata Property Act, we determined that the District was correct to tax each strata unit individually. However, the tax process relies on the application of multiple provisions found in the Local Government Act. During our investigation we found that the District’s practice was to discuss the annual tax rate at its Annual General Meeting (AGM), which all taxpayers are invited to attend. Following the AGM, the District sends invoices to each taxpayer. Blair’s tax invoice included a single-line item with a description of the tax and the amount owing as well as a comment at the bottom regarding late payment penalties. The invoice did not appear to comply with the requirements set out in the Act – it did not include a description of the assessment of Blair’s property or include information on a court of revision or how to file a complaint. As these are statutory requirements for all improvement district tax notices, it was procedurally unfair to omit this information. Further, the District advised that its practice was to email tax notices rather than to send a hard copy by mail and when we asked it to provide us a copy of the email sent to Blair, it was not provided. A failure to deliver a tax notice is also procedurally unfair. Finally, we also learned that the District did not operate any sort of court of revision or appeal process that allows taxpayers to dispute their assessments. This omission is contrary to the requirements of the Act.

To remedy the administrative fairness concerns identified in our investigation, we recommended and the District agreed to:

1. Develop and implement a standard tax notice including all information required under the Act.
2. Commit to delivering tax notices in accordance with the Act and to maintain records.
3. Implement a court of revision to provide opportunity for taxpayers to complain about an assessment.