Case Law

Assessor of Area 10 – North Fraser Region v. Sherkat (2011), Stated Case 531 cont. (B.C.C.A.) (January 21, 2011)
Valuation of development sites – contamination

BCCA decision: The question of valuation of the Subject Property was remitted to the PAAB because the BCCA found that the BCSC erred in law by valuing the subject property at a value less than value in its highest and best use.

Sears Canada Inc. v. Assessor of Area 09 – Vancouver Sea to Sky Region, 2011 PAABBC 20081289 (January 19, 2011; correction issued March 16, 2011)
Valuation of mixed-use use commercial complex including Sears Pacific Centre store

PAAB Decision: The PAAB confirmed the value of the volumetric parcels. The PAAB rejected the Assessor’s development approach to value as speculative and favoured the income approach.

Low v. Assessor of Area 08 – Vancouver Sea to Sky Region, 2011 PAABBC 20101818 (February 16, 2011)
Assessment of lots leased from the Crown

PAAB Decision: The PAAB held that the Assessor is obligated, under section 19(5) of the Assessment Act, to consider the effect on value of any restrictions on use imposed by the lease. The PAAB further concluded that these restrictions as well as the risk to access affected value and required the 2010 roll values to be adjusted accordingly.  

664189 B.C. Ltd. v. Assessor of Area 24 – Cariboo, 2011 PAABBC 20101924 (March 10, 2011)
Assessment of occupied Crown land

PAAB Decision: Section 26 of the Assessment Act requires the Assessor to assess the property to the occupier as if it were owned in fee simple. Occupation need not be exclusive.

Mark Anthony Properties Ltd. v. Assessor of Area 19 – Kelowna, 2011 PAABBC 20110448 (April 15, 2011)
Application to add an issue

PAAB Decision: The PAAB concluded that section 57(1)(b) of the Assessment Act does not compel the PAAB to determine the actual value of land in every case. The PAAB also declined to exercise its discretion to add the issue after considering the following factors: the need to uphold the efficacy of the PAAB’s rules and the appeal management process; prejudice to the parties and the degree to which the prejudice could be compensated by other means; the likelihood that the roll would be inaccurate and the extent of that inaccuracy; and the public interest in fair and equitable assessment.