When does a house cross the line into being labeled as 'uninhabitable'? This question has sparked a vital discussion in Sault Ste. Marie, where a city task force has uncovered a surprising twist: the existing vacant home tax bylaw may inadvertently be encouraging property owners to neglect their homes.
On Monday, city council members will be presented with the opportunity to amend this bylaw, aiming to close a loophole that allows homeowners to claim exemptions for properties deemed "uninhabitable" due to circumstances they cannot control.
This bylaw, which came into effect on January 1 of the previous year, imposes a four percent tax on homes left unoccupied. However, it includes an exemption for those who argue that their properties are uninhabitable. Jenna Ricard from the city's legal department is advocating for the removal of this particular exemption.
In a report prepared for Mayor Matthew Shoemaker and the ward councillors, Ricard expresses her concerns: "The term uninhabitable is vague and subjective. Through our experiences with property owners claiming this vacant home tax (VHT) exemption, we have found that this broader definition acts more as a loophole than a protective measure.
We recommend eliminating this uninhabitable clause from the city’s VHT bylaw, as it encourages neglect, permits owners to sidestep the VHT without making their homes livable again, and ultimately defeats the purpose behind the bylaw's creation."
To thoroughly assess this issue, a working group focused on the VHT—comprising members from the city’s tax, legal, building, and planning departments—has spent recent months reviewing the bylaw. Their findings suggest that enforcing the uninhabitable exemption proves to be both complex and costly, requiring inspections by city building division staff and subsequent approvals from the chief building official.
Interestingly, while this exemption was initially suggested by provincial guidelines, it remains just that—a suggestion, not a requirement. Upon reviewing similar bylaws enacted by other municipalities in Ontario, the group found that none included an exemption based on the concept of uninhabitable conditions. In contrast, cities like Ottawa and Hamilton have established more stringent criteria through a hazardous property exemption, defined specifically for properties rendered uninhabitable due to hazardous conditions or significant damage from uncontrollable disasters.
Ricard will propose to the city council on Monday not only to remove the term 'uninhabitable' from the Sault's VHT but also to introduce several clarifications, including:
- Major repairs or renovations should refer to construction, alterations, repairs, or demolitions requiring building permits that render the property unlivable for at least 183 days during the taxation year because it lacks essential facilities such as sanitary systems, kitchens, electrical, plumbing, heating, and structural integrity.
- Routine maintenance, cosmetic upgrades, or minor work that could feasibly be completed while the dwelling remains occupied will not qualify as major repairs or renovations.
- To qualify for the major repairs or renovations exemption, the work must be actively and diligently pursued without unnecessary delays throughout the majority of the taxation year.
- To limit the use of this exemption, it can only be claimed for one taxation year within any five consecutive years.
- Property owners will need to provide supporting documentation, which might include active building permits, permissions from relevant authorities such as the Electrical Safety Authority or the Sault Ste. Marie Conservation Authority, along with evidence of ongoing work, such as photographs, inspection reports, work orders, receipts, or invoices from contractors.
- These proposed amendments would apply to any future VHT declarations, including occupancy status forms submitted for the 2025 taxation year.
Don't forget to tune in to the city council meeting on Monday, which will be streamed live on SooToday starting at 5 p.m. This topic raises critical questions about property rights and community responsibility—what do you think? Should there be a clearer definition of uninhabitable, or do you believe the current system provides adequate protection for homeowners?
