Former Toronto Raptors head coach Nick Nurse and his spouse are currently in a legal battle with the Ontario government over the government’s refusal to reimburse them close to $700,000 in foreign buyer tax they paid for their residence in Mississauga. A notice of appeal, dated July 6 and filed with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, claims that the provincial government unjustly denied Nurse and his wife a refund for a non-resident speculation tax (NRST) they paid when they purchased their $4.65 million home in 2021.
The provincial tax is imposed on residential properties bought by “individuals who are foreign nationals,” as per the province’s official website. The notice argues that Nurse and his wife Roberta did not fit the profile of real estate speculators targeted by the Legislature. The residence served as their primary home from 2021 to 2023, according to their appeal.
Despite residing in the property, the notice states that Nurse and his wife were considered foreign nationals in Canada during that time. However, it highlights that Nurse held a work permit for foreign nationals and had been employed by Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment LTD., the company that owns the Raptors, for nearly a decade.
Nurse, renowned for leading the Raptors to their first NBA championship in 2019, was relieved of his coaching duties in 2023 after a lackluster season. Following his departure, he took on coaching responsibilities for the Philadelphia 76ers. The notice of appeal asserts that Nurse and his wife were eligible for an NRST rebate based on provincial regulations.
According to the document, the couple applied for the rebate in March 2024, with their residence in Mississauga being sold in September 2023. Their application was turned down in April 2024, prompting them to challenge the decision through a notice of objection. After a series of communications with the Ministry of Finance, the government reaffirmed its denial on April 10 of this year.
In response, Nurse and his wife pursued legal action, seeking a refund of $697,500 plus accrued interest and any other suitable relief as determined by the court. The appeal asserts that the requirement to occupy the home at the time of applying for the rebate was not in effect when their application was submitted.