An appeal of a decision from the Property Assessment Appeal Board was dismissed as its findings regarding the “highest and best use” of the property were reasonable

20. March 2018 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Assessment Appeal Board – Municipalities – Property Assessment – Judicial review – Appeals – Standard of review – Reasonableness Telus Communications (BC) Inc. v. British Columbia (Assessor of Area #09 – Vancouver Sea to Sky Region), [2018] B.C.J. No. 119, 2018 BCSC 113, Supreme Court of British Columbia, January ...

The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by a residents’ association of a decision by an assessment and planning appeal board which found that the association had waived its right to claim that members on the preservation review board were biased. Whether a reasonable apprehension of bias existed was a question of law and the board should not be afforded due deference. The standard of review was thus correctness. The bias concerns raised by the residents’ association were effective and timely, and it did not matter that there was no formal request that certain board members recuse themselves from the decision-making process.

25. July 2006 0
Administrative law – Municipalities – Planning and zoning – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Assessment Appeal Board – Judicial review – Bias – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Correctness Rothesay Residents Assn. Inc. v. Rothesay Heritage Preservation & Review Board, [2006] N.B.J. No. 227, New Brunswick Court of Appeal, June 1, 2006, Daigle, ...

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal by Preston Crossing Properties (“Preston”) of an assessment decision by the Municipal Board Committee upholding an assessor’s application of a 72% market adjustment factor to the buildings, based on a notable traffic increase to the buildings rendering them more valuable than other nearby buildings. The Committee did not err in concluding that Preston was given full opportunity to develop and state its case before the Board of Revision and in upholding the market adjustment factor of .72 (as opposed to .61 in valuing buildings Preston regarded as comparable to its own) for the purposes of the assessment.

25. July 2006 0
Administrative law – Municipalities – Property assessment – Market adjustment factor – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Assessment Appeal Board – Hearings – Conduct of hearings – Fairness – Judicial review – Evidence – Admissibility – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice Preston Cross Properties Inc. v. Saskatoon (City), [2006] S.J. No. 335, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, ...