Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The Committee exceeded its jurisdiction by nullifying the entire 2022 Board decision instead of correcting the specific legal error.

• It improperly treated the Board’s 2021 decision as binding in the 2022 assessment appeal without adequate analysis.

• The Court reaffirmed that each year’s property tax assessment constitutes a distinct decision requiring fresh review.

• Findings of fact by the Board were not properly reviewed by the Committee, violating administrative law principles.

• The Committee’s flawed reliance on precedent tainted its handling of both the land size multiplier and base land rate issues.

• The appeal was allowed, the Committee’s decision quashed, and the matter remitted for full reconsideration; costs awarded to Pillar.

Background and procedural history

In Pillar Properties Real Estate Corp. v. Saskatoon (City), 2024 SKCA 75, the appellant, Pillar Properties, challenged the 2022 property tax assessment of its 261,336 square foot parcel of vacant commercial land in Saskatoon’s Marquis Industrial area. The property had been assessed at $3,214,400 using the cost approach, based on a base land rate (BLR) of $12.30 per square foot. The assessor declined to apply a land size multiplier (LSM) despite evidence that larger parcels typically sell for lower per-square-foot values.

Pillar appealed the assessment to the City’s Board of Revision, arguing that the lack of an LSM led to an inequitable valuation and that the sales data used to calculate the BLR and site adjustments improperly overlapped. The Board agreed with Pillar on the LSM issue but not on the BLR and remitted the matter to the assessor to determine the appropriate LSM. This approach aimed to correct the overvaluation without the Board prescribing a specific multiplier.

Committee decision and legal error

Both Pillar and the City appealed the Board’s 2022 decision to the Assessment Appeals Committee. The Committee ruled that the Board lacked the jurisdiction to remit the matter to the assessor and instead should have either confirmed or altered the assessment directly. As a result, it declared the Board’s decision a nullity and proceeded to conduct a first-instance review. In doing so, the Committee also heavily relied on its own 2021 decision regarding the same property, effectively treating it as binding precedent.

The Committee dismissed Pillar’s argument that the LSM should have been applied and found no fault with the use of sales data in the BLR calculation. It reinstated the assessor’s original valuation of $3,214,400, dismissing all grounds of appeal from both parties.

Appeal to the Court of Appeal and core findings

Pillar appealed to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, asserting that the Committee:

1. Erred in law by treating the prior year’s decision as binding,

2. Erred in jurisdiction by nullifying the Board’s entire decision based on a narrow procedural issue, and

3. Failed to properly consider the Board’s factual findings.

The Court agreed with Pillar on all counts. Justice Tholl, writing for a unanimous panel, emphasized that each year’s assessment is a new administrative decision, and while past decisions may carry persuasive value, they do not bind future Boards or Committees unless based on identical records and legal frameworks. The Court found that the Committee improperly applied a precedent-based approach without evaluating whether new evidence justified a different result.

Moreover, the Committee’s complete nullification of the Board’s decision was found to be disproportionate. A single legal error—remitting the LSM issue instead of deciding it—did not justify invalidating all findings, particularly where the Board had conducted a thorough review. The Court noted that the Committee had also failed to apply a reasonableness standard in reviewing the Board’s factual conclusions, as required under Vavilov.

Remittal and final outcome

Given that the LSM and BLR issues were closely linked in the Board’s reasoning, the Court held that the entire matter must be remitted for fresh consideration. It found that the Committee’s reasoning was tainted by an overreliance on prior decisions and by its failure to analyze the current year’s evidence on its own merits.

The Court allowed the appeal, quashed the 2022 Committee Decision in full, and remitted both Pillar’s and the City’s appeals back to the Committee for a new hearing. Costs were awarded to Pillar for both the appeal and the leave application, to be calculated in the usual manner.