Former Toronto Raptors head coach Nick Nurse and his spouse are in a legal battle with the Ontario government regarding a dispute over a reimbursement of nearly $700,000 in foreign buyer tax they paid for their Mississauga residence. A notice of appeal was submitted to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on July 6, claiming that the government unjustly denied Nurse and his wife a refund for a non-resident speculation tax (NRST) they paid upon purchasing their $4.65 million home in 2021. The NRST is levied on residential properties acquired by foreign nationals, as per the province’s regulations.
According to the appeal, Nurse and his wife contend that they were not the targeted real estate speculators the legislation was intended for, as their home served as their primary residence from 2021 to 2023. The notice highlights that Nurse, while a foreign national in Canada during his residency, possessed a foreign national work permit and was employed by Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment LTD., the parent company of the Raptors, for close to a decade.
The appeal emphasizes Nurse’s substantial economic and social contributions to the province, particularly during his tenure as head coach when he led the Raptors to their historic NBA championship victory in 2019. Despite being dismissed in 2023 after a lackluster season and subsequently coaching the Philadelphia 76ers, Nurse’s appeal asserts that he and his wife were eligible for an NRST rebate based on provincial guidelines.
The couple’s lawyer, Mike Collinge, declined to provide further comments on the matter. The appeal states that Nurse and his spouse applied for the rebate in March 2024 but were denied in April of the same year due to not occupying the property at the time of application. The subsequent objections and exchanges with the Ministry of Finance culminated in the government’s final rejection in April 2025.
Nurse and his wife have now escalated the issue by filing an appeal seeking a $697,500 rebate plus interest, along with any additional relief granted by the court. They assert that the denial was unfounded, given the circumstances surrounding their application and occupancy of the property as outlined in the appeal.