PROPERTY ASSESSMENT APPEAL BOARD

SIGNIFICANT COURT CASES


Purpose:

Parties sometimes reference or cite past decisions of the Board or Courts to support their position on an appeal issue. Below are links to significant court decisions on assessment issues that have frequently been used by parties.

You may also want to search for other Court decisions using the Courts of British Columbia website.

You can look up past Board decisions using this website.

Note of caution:

These links to Court decisions are provided as a resource for you, but should not be relied upon as advice from the Board. These decisions may not apply to your appeal and, even if they do, may not be the best or most relevant decisions to support your position on the issues. In some appeals, there are probably other more relevant cases that are not included on this page. It is up to the parties to decide which, if any, decisions they may want to reference. The Board must make a determination of appeals based on the argument and evidence presented by the parties.

If you decide to use a past Board or Court decision to support your case:

Please remember to:

  • Outline why and how this other decision supports your position on the appeal issue.
  • Include a full copy of the decision with your evidence and argument submission. For further information see the Appeal Guide: When & how do I submit evidence.

Links to Court Decisions:

The decisions are ordered by assessment topics. You can link to the full decision by clicking the decision name listed below.

VALUATION ISSUES:

Highest and Best Use:

Petro-Canada Inc. (Gulf Canada Ltd.) v. Assessor of Area #12 – Coquitlam (1991) Stated Case 321 BCSC

Gemex Developments Corp. v. Assessor of Area #12 – Coquitlam (1998) Stated Case 386 BCCA

Southam Inc.(Pacific Newspaper Group Inc) v. Assessor of Area #14 – Surrey-White Rock 2004 BCCA 245; (2004) Stated Case 466

City of Toronto v. Ontario Jockey Club [1934] SCR 223

Cost to Cure:

Assessor of Area No. 10 – Burnaby/New Westminster v. Haggerty Equipment Co. Ltd. (1997) Stated Case 596 BCSC
(test to be applied in determining whether a factor such as contamination affects a property’s market value)

Approaches to Value:

Montreal v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, [1952] 2 D.L.R. 81 (P.C.)

Income Approach:

West Coast Transmission Company Limited v. Assessor of Area #09 – Vancouver (1987) Stated Case 235 BCSC

Assessor of Area 09 - Vancouver v. James Lau (1999) Stated Case 423 BCSC

Standard Life Assurance Company v. Assessor of Area #01 - Capital(1997) Stated Case 381 BCCA (Economic vs. Actual Rents)

London Life Insurance Co. v. Assessor of Area #09 - Vancouver (1988) SC 255 BCSC

Bentall Retail Services Inc. v. Assessor of Area #09 – Vancouver 2006 BCSC 424 (2006) Stated Case 495

Value to Owner

Genstar Ltd. v. District of Mission (1981) Stated Case 150 BCCA

EQUITY ISSUES:

Assessor of Area #09 – Vancouver v. Michael Lount (1995) Stated Case 353 BCCA

Assessor of Area #09 - Vancouver v. Bramalea Limited (1990) Stated Case 277 BCCA

Ross and Grubb v. Assessor of Area #10 – New Westminster 2000 BCCA (2000) Stated Case 419

Broadway Properties Ltd. v. Assessor of Area #09 - Vancouver (2005) Stated Case 482A (BCSC)

Wal-Mart Canada Inc. v. Assessor of Area #26 - Prince George and Assessor of Area #27 – Peace River 2005 BCSC 1625; (2005) State Case 492

CLASSIFICATION ISSUES:

Assessor of Area #10 – Burnaby/New Westminster v. Reemark XIII Developments Ltd. and Fairmont Dev. Inc. (Ricelda Holdings) (1992) Stated Case 329 BCSC
(deals with the concept of "use")

Bosa Development Corporation v. Assessor of Area #12 - Coquitlam (1996) Stated Case 362 BCCA
(use, specific zoning, ‘held for’)

Carolin Mines Ltd. (Anglo Swiss Mining Corporation) v. Assessor of Area 16 – Chilliwack (1992) Stated Case 305 BCCA
(definition of industrial improvement)

Eccom Developments Ltd. v. Assessor of Area #9 - Vanouver (1989) Stated Case 269 BCCA
(no present use, specifically zoned)

The Ronald McDonald House TM Society of British Columbia v. Assessor of Area #9 – Vancouver (1984) Stated Case 178 BCCA
(actual use, exemption)

Assessor of Area No.10 – Burnaby/New Westminster v. Intracorp Developments Ltd. 2000 BCCA 121; (2000) Stated Case 416
(test for “used for residential purposes”)

Jericho Tennis Club v. Assessor of Area #09 – Vancouver (1999) Stated Case 424 BCSC
(State and Condition Date - for classification)

Kebet Holdings Ltd. v. Assessor of Area 12 - Coquitlam (1987) Stated Case 237 BCSC
(meaning of: for the purpose of transporting; for Class 5)

Farm Classification:

Assessment Commissioner of British Columbia v. Progressive Construction Ltd. (1991) Stated Case 280 BCCA
(primary agricultural production)

Mussallem Realty Ltd. v. Assessor of Area #13 – Dewdney/Alouette (1993) Stated Case 342 BCSC
(integrated farm operation, primary agricultural production/token use)

Tri-Crest Investment Corporation v. Assessor of Area #20 - Vernon (1982) Stated Case 165 BCSC
(written lease, lease date)

ASSESSIBILITY ISSUES:

Occupier:

Assessment Commissioner v. John Wayne Ryan (1979) Stated Case 124 BCSC

Newmont Mines Limited v. The Queen (1982) Stated Case 151 BCCA

Vancouver Port Authority et al. v. Corporation of the Municipality of Delta et al. 2004 BCSC 343; (2004) Stated Case 474

Vancouver Port Authority v. Delta (Municipality) 2004 BCCA 344; (2004) Stated Case 474
(leave denied)

TSI Terminal Systems Inc. v. Assessor of Area #09 – Vancouver 2005 BCSC 1573; (2005) Stated Case 491

Gottardo Properties (Dome) Inc. v. Toronto (City) (1998)162 DLR (4th) 574
(test to determine paramount occupancy)

DISCLOSURE

Assessor Area #1 – Capital v. Lehigh Portland Cement Limited, 2010 BCSC 193

Confidentiality:

Assessor of Area #09 – Vancouver v. Lord Realty Holdings Ltd. (1996) Stated Case 359 BCCA

BOARD’S JURISDICTION

Lennox and Page v. Assessor of Area #01 – Saanich-Capital (1987) Stated Case 281 BCSC

Tiberon Investments Inc. and Gandalf Enterprises Ltd. v. Assessor of Area #1 – Saanich-Capital (1985) Stated Case 203 BCSC

Pacific Rim Resort Properties Inc. v. Assessor of Area #05 2005 BCCA 241; (2005) Stated Case 464

Last updated on January 9, 2012