Former Toronto Raptors head coach Nick Nurse and his spouse are in a legal battle with the Ontario government over the denial of a reimbursement totaling close to $700,000 in foreign buyer tax for their residence in Mississauga. A notice of appeal submitted on July 6 to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice claims that the provincial government unjustly refused to provide Nurse and his wife with a rebate for a non-resident speculation tax (NRST) they paid upon purchasing their $4.65 million home in 2021. The NRST is imposed on residential properties bought by foreign nationals, as outlined on the province’s official website.
The notice argues that Nurse and his wife should have been eligible for the rebate, asserting they did not fall under the category of real estate speculators targeted by the legislation. It states that the couple utilized the home as their primary residence from 2021 to 2023. While Nurse and his wife were foreign nationals in Canada during their stay at the property, the notice highlights Nurse’s significant contributions to the province as an employee of Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment LTD., which owns the Raptors.
Nurse, who led the Raptors to their inaugural championship victory in 2019, was later terminated in 2023 after a disappointing season. The notice underscores that according to provincial regulations, Nurse and his wife met the criteria for an NRST rebate. The couple’s legal representative, Mike Collinge, declined to provide further comments at this time.
An application for the rebate was submitted by Nurse and his wife in March 2024, following the sale of their Mississauga home in September 2023. The application was rejected in April 2024, leading to a notice of objection filed by the couple. Despite subsequent exchanges with the ministry, the government reaffirmed its decision to deny the rebate in April 2025.
Nurse and his wife have now launched an appeal seeking a rebate of $697,500 along with applicable interest and any other relief deemed suitable by the court. The appeal contends that the requirement for the couple to occupy the home at the time of the rebate application was not in place when they initially applied.