BAHA Property Investment Group Inc. v. The Queen (December 17, 2019 – 2019 TCC 279, Russell J.).
Précis: In 2010 two individuals - Charnkamal Hansra and Balvir Bassi – signed an agreement of purchase and sale to acquire a condominium (unit 5, level 20) in a property to be built by Ferncastle (Esplanade) Inc. in Toronto. On closing the deed was issued in the name of BAHA Property Investment Group Inc. The corporation applied for the New Residential Rental Property Rebate which was denied on the basis that it was not named in the 2010 agreement of purchase and sale. The corporation appealed to the Tax Court which dismissed the appeal holding that there was no evidence of an assignment of the rights under the 2010 agreement to BAHA. There was no order as to costs since this was an informal procedure appeal.
Decision: Quite simply the paperwork did not support BAHA’s rebate request:
 As stated, the Respondent’s position was that BAHA was not entitled to the rebate as it did not fit the ETA definition of “recipient” insofar as there was no basis for considering that BAHA was liable for the consideration specified in the 2010 p/s agreement for supply of the subject unit 5 level 20 condominium property.
 I am obliged to concur with the Respondent. From the evidence there is no documentation showing that the two individuals - Charnkamal Hansra and Balvir Bassi – had assigned or otherwise transferred any of their rights and duties, as the named purchasers under the 2010 p/s agreement, to anyone. Instead, what we have are strangers to the 2010 p/s agreement - Amirta Hansra, Sundeep Bassi and Babaljit Hansra – in 2017 purporting to assign purchaser rights and duties to BAHA under the 2010 p/s agreement by way of the May 24, 2017 Notice of assignment and direction. But, there is no assignment document or any other document showing these three have any standing or authority to assign to BAHA the rights and duties of a purchaser under the 2010 p/s agreement. The fact that some or all of these three persons may have been directors of the corporate entity BAHA and/or spouses of the actual two named purchasers in the 2010 p/s agreement does not change any of this. Additionally, no corporate documentation of BAHA indicating any directors’ or shareholders’ resolutions bearing on this question was put in evidence or referred to.
 As well, the fact that the purchased property was put in BAHA’s name as owner and BAHA ultimately is named as the mortgagor on the mortgage secured by the subject property, that does not retroactively make BAHA legally responsible for payment of the purchase price per the 2010 p/s agreement. For starters and in any event the amount of the consideration specified in the 2010 p/s agreement ($342,000) is quite different than the principal amount of the CIBC mortgage ($274,320).
 I parenthetically add that likely any assignment of purchaser interests would have required the vendor’s consent – noting again that the Court was not provided a copy of any of the schedules to the 2010 p/s agreement. In any one of those schedules there quite possibly would be a clause specifying no assignment by the purchasers except with consent of the vendor.
There was no order as to costs since this was an informal procedure appeal.