Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The appellant’s delay of 18 months in pursuing the appeal, without adequate explanation, led to dismissal.

• Mr. Goldberg failed to demonstrate any legal merit in his appeal concerning either the substantive or cost-related orders.

• His constitutional challenges to the Assessment Act were found meritless and procedurally inadequate at trial.

• The appellant’s attempt to reframe factual concerns as legal errors in the appeal process was rejected by the court.

• The Court emphasized that self-represented status does not excuse procedural non-compliance, especially from a former lawyer.

• Costs awarded against Mr. Goldberg were upheld, including travel expenses, as reasonable and in line with standard litigation practice.

Background of the property tax appeal

Sheldon Goldberg challenged the outcome of property tax assessments upheld by the Property Assessment Appeal Board. His appeals, including a constitutional challenge to the Assessment Act, were dismissed by the Supreme Court of British Columbia in two decisions: one in July 2022 addressing the assessment issues, and another in September 2023 awarding costs to the respondents.

In the original proceedings, Mr. Goldberg alleged that administrative adjudicators should have taken oaths of independence, should have been informed of prior requests to state a case, and that he was entitled to in-person hearings with witness cross-examination. Justice Fleming found these were not legal questions as required by the Assessment Act and declined to remit them back for amendment due to their lack of merit. Mr. Goldberg's constitutional challenge was also dismissed for being inadequately framed and unsupported by facts.

The second decision awarded over $6,800 in costs to the respondents, including travel disbursements for out-of-town counsel. The court found the legal issues raised were of private, not public, interest and that Mr. Goldberg's conduct had unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings.

Court of Appeal proceedings

Mr. Goldberg filed an appeal in October 2023 but failed to take any further steps until March 2025, prompting the Court of Appeal to place the matter on its inactive list. In April 2025, he applied to remove it from the inactive list and requested a 90-day extension for filing documents. The Court, sitting in chambers, dismissed this application.

Reasons for dismissal

Justice Butler concluded that the appeal should not be reactivated based on several key factors:

• Lengthy delay: The 18-month period between the notice of appeal and his application to proceed, plus an earlier 14-month delay from the original decision to filing, was unjustified. Mr. Goldberg’s explanations, including health issues and misreading court correspondence, were found insufficient.

• Merits of the appeal: The appeal lacked any clearly articulated legal errors. The underlying appeal decisions were based on statutory interpretation and application of procedural rules that Mr. Goldberg had not substantively challenged.

• Prejudice to respondents: The delay negatively impacted the statutory scheme under the Assessment Act, which relies on timely resolution due to its connection to annual property tax assessments.

• Procedural irregularities: The notice of appeal was unclear, and Mr. Goldberg did not properly apply for extensions of time required under the Court of Appeal Rules. His prior legal training was noted, which weighed against his claims of procedural confusion.

Final outcome

The Court ruled that reactivating the appeal was not in the interests of justice. Mr. Goldberg’s application was dismissed, and his appeal was formally deemed abandoned under Rule 51(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules. This closed the file on a matter originally stemming from a 2019 property tax assessment and over five years of litigation.