New Provincial Legislation
This is a listing of legislation that is of particular interest for assessment purposes.
REGULATIONS/ORDERS CREATED OR AMENDED:
(a) Cabinet Regulations/Orders made or amended:
(b) Assessment Authority Regulations/Orders that have been made or amended:
(c) Other Regulations/Orders that have been made or amended:
Selected Assessment Appeal Cases
1. Classification
Stated Cases:
Beach, Nancy v. Area 01 (2021) Stated Case 581 (2021 BCSC 1770) (September 9, 2021)
This appeal concerned the 2020 assessments of five vacant parcels with a total area of 403 acres, not within the Agricultural Land Reserve. The Appellant argued that the PAAB incorrectly interpreted the legislation and that the properties should be classified as Class 9 Farm as the five parcels are part of her farm operation. The Appellant described apiculture, horticulture and Christmas tree activity. The Assessor inspected the properties and found insufficient activity; the statutory income threshold was not met and the properties could not be considered a developing farm under s. 8 of the
Classification
of
Land
as a
Farm
Regulation.
PAAB Decisions:
Quinn, Myrna et al v. Area 17 2021 PAABBC 20211477 (July 23, 2021)
Farm/Developing farm
The Property is a 10.08 acre site, located partially in the ALR and improved with an older dwelling. Prior to 2020, the land had been classified as farm based upon its use as a cattle ranch. No income was earned or reported in 2020. In January 2020, the Appellants submitted a new farm application to convert 6.23 acres of their land into a vineyard. They indicated that 5.73 acres had been set aside for grapes to be planted by June 15, 2020. The Appellants maintained that they had consistently made efforts to repurpose their land from a cattle ranch to a vineyard with their efforts frustrated by the unforeseen pandemic. The Assessor maintained that its original decision was correct. A November 2020 inspection found no vineyards were planted and the area had not been prepared for planting. As the preparation and planting were delayed, the harvest date of October 2022 could not have been achieved and the Assessor was not satisfied that a viable farm was established.
2. Assessability
Stated Cases:
None at this time
PAAB Decisions:
None at this time
3. Valuation
Stated Cases:
None at this time
PAAB Decisions:
Scott, Alan v. Area 09 2021 PAABBC 20211896 (August 26, 2021)
Eligibility for s. 19(8) relief
The Appellant stated that the Subject's assessment was arbitrarily changed to a much higher assessment. The Appellant sought to have the value reduced to $2,815,000, similar to that of a neighbouring property. The neighbouring property was valued on its actual residential use not its highest and best use like the Subject. The Assessor sought to confirm value as the Appellant had not submitted the annual application required under the
Assessment
Act.
Broadway Properties Ltd. v. Area 09 2021 PAABBC 20211338 (August 4, 2021)
Apartment Housing
Property is a 129,237 sq.ft. site improved with two 1964 walk-up apartments with 80 units of which 50% are occupied. The buildings were reaching the end of their economic lifespan; improvements were valued using the cost approach and were fully depreciated. Current zoning was comprehensive development. The Parties agreed that the Subject was a redevelopment site and had potential to be rezoned for mixed-use development. The Appellant argued that the Assessor's valuation methodology created a systemic inequity between large sites, small sites and lots being assembled for redevelopment sites. The Appellant analyzed these three types of equity comparables and recommended a reduced assessment. The Assessor said he was required to assess individual parcels according to their market value and to not reflect a speculative value to owner related to site assembly. The Assessor said the Appellant was relying on comparables not in the Subject's competitive market set. The Assessor sought to confirm value. The two tests for equity were to test the consistency of assessments with similar properties (ASRs) and to examine the units of comparison for similar properties within the Subject's competitive market set. The Assessor's analysis was based on two time adjusted sales from 2016 and 2017 that were of similar size and had a similar HBU. The Appellant presented nine equity comparables and the Assessor submitted eight equity comparables.
BFS Properties Inc. v. Area 09 2021 PAABBC 20211020 (July 28, 2021)
Warehouse/Office
The Property consists of a warehouse and office building on a 5,856 sq.ft. industrial zoned mid- block site with lane access. The Appellant said the value was too high and was inequitable when compared to similar properties in the neighbourhood; the Assessor said the value was below actual value but is equitable. The Appellant provided a HBU analysis, an appraisal report, an equity study and support for the time adjustments applied. The Assessor provided an appraisal report and an equity review as well as support for the adjustments applied for time and corner versus interior lot location. The Appellant used the closing date rather than the interim date for the sales reported; the PAAB agreed with the Assessor that this was not sound appraisal theory. The Appellant's time adjustments were determined by comparing changes in assessed values year over year; the PAAB preferred the Assessor's paired sales analysis. The Appellant's equity comparables were all similar in zoning, however, most of them were legally non-conforming uses as they were improved with a residential dwelling rather than a warehouse; the Appellant argued that most of the value was in the land. The Assessor argued that the comparables have a different HBU from the Subject as illustrated by a paired sales analysis.
4. Exemptions
Stated Cases:
None at this time
PAAB Decisions:
None at this time
5. Occupiers
Stated Cases:
None at this time
PAAB Decisions:
None at this time
6. Appeal Procedure
Stated Cases:
None at this time
PAAB Decisions:
Oreck, Harvey v. Area 09 2021 PAABBC 20211500 (September 10, 2021)
Request for oral hearing
The Appellant requested an oral hearing; neither party provided a formal argument about the need for an oral hearing in their written submissions concerning the underlying substantive issue, although the PAAB did consider whether an oral hearing was necessary.
Broadway Properties Ltd. v. Area 09 2021 PAABBC 20211338 (August 4, 2021)
Allegations of bias/Submissions
The Appellant requested that the PAAB panel recuse themselves and that another panel member adjudicate the appeal as the panel member had previously been employed at BC Assessment. The Appellant also objected to the Assessor's submissions on market value as equity was the only issue in the appeal.
PARP Property Assessment Review Panel
PAAB Property Assessment Appeal Board
BCSC British Columbia Supreme Court
BCCA British Columbia Court of Appeal
SCC Supreme Court of Canada
