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:
Telus Communications (BC) Inc. v. Assessor of Area #09, 2019 BCCA 94
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
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:
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
Value to Owner
Telus Communications (BC) Inc. v. Assessor of Area #09, 2019 BCCA 94
Assessor of Area #01 v. Nav Canada et al, 2016 BCCA 71
Victory Motors Ltd v. Assessor of Area #15, 2017 BCCA 295
Genstar Ltd. v. District of Mission (1981) Stated Case 150 BCCA
Exemptions
City of Coquitlam v British Columbia (Assessor of Area 10 – North Fraser Region) 2020 BCSC 440
(Awaiting BCCA decision - last updated February 2021)
Simon Fraser University v. British Columbia (Assessor of Area 10 – Burnaby) 2019 BCCA 93
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)
CLASSIFICATION ISSUES:
Amacon Group et al v. Assessor of Area #09, 2016 BCSC 146
(split classification, land or airspace parcel with no present use)
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:
Honeybee Centre et al. v. Assessor of Area #14/15, 2019 PAABBC 20181826
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)
Ashfield v British Columbia (Assessor of Area #06 – Courtenay), 2019 BCSC 1350
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 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
Pacific Rim Resort Properties Inc. v. Assessor of Area #05 2005 BCCA 241; (2005) Stated Case 464
COURT'S JURISDICTION
Murarka v British Columbia (Assessor of Area #11 – Richmond/Delta), 2019 BCSC 1832