Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Whether SAMA complied with specific remittal instructions from the Assessment Appeals Committee in reassessing 2017 and 2018 property tax values

• Adequacy and legal sufficiency of SAMA’s adjustments to the capitalization rates for large commercial properties

• Proper standard of review applicable to SAMA’s actions—reasonableness vs correctness under the Vavilov framework

• Whether judicial review could extend to the actual revised assessments or only to SAMA’s actions and inactions

• The evidentiary adequacy of SAMA's statistical modeling and treatment of sales data based on property size

• The distinction between discretionary administrative action and failure to follow binding directions from a quasi-judicial tribunal

Background and facts of the case

Altus Group Limited, acting as agent for several commercial property owners in Estevan and the surrounding Rural Municipality (RM), appealed 2017 and 2018 property tax assessments issued by the Saskatchewan Assessment Management Agency (SAMA). The challenge focused on SAMA’s mass appraisal model, which Altus alleged overvalued properties larger than 6,000 square feet due to its failure to adjust capitalization rates appropriately for size. Altus pursued appeals through the local Boards of Revision and then before the Assessment Appeals Committee of the Saskatchewan Municipal Board.

The Committee ruled in Altus’s favor for both the 2017 City and RM assessments, remitting the matters back to SAMA with directions to make appropriate adjustments. The 2018 appeal was also partially successful, with SAMA directed to build a new capitalization rate model using updated 2018 data. Altus subsequently alleged that SAMA’s adjustments failed to comply with the Committee’s instructions, particularly in relation to the treatment of large properties and the application of statistical analysis.

Procedural history and judicial review

Altus applied to the Court of King’s Bench seeking judicial review, requesting declarations that SAMA’s actions were unlawful, that the revised assessments were unreasonable, and orders for certiorari and mandamus. The Chambers judge dismissed the application, finding that SAMA’s responses were reasonable. The court held that SAMA’s actions—not the assessments themselves—were subject to review, and concluded that SAMA retained discretion in implementing the Committee’s directions. It found that SAMA’s reasoning and statistical analysis were within acceptable bounds and showed no fatal irrationality.

Altus appealed this ruling to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, arguing the judge erred in limiting the scope of judicial review, misidentifying the applicable standard of review, and failing to find that SAMA had acted unreasonably.

Court of Appeal decision and analysis

The Court of Appeal upheld the Chambers judge's reasoning in part but overturned her findings in relation to the 2017 assessments. The Court affirmed that judicial review applies to SAMA’s actions and inactions, not to the revised assessments per se, in line with the statutory appeal scheme and the principle that judicial review cannot be used to circumvent the legislated appeal framework.

However, the Court held that SAMA’s response to the 2017 City and RM decisions was not reasonable. The remittal instructions required SAMA to apply specific adjustments to the capitalization rates based on Altus’s data, yet SAMA instead applied a blanket 4% reduction in assessed values without modifying cap rates. The Court found this approach departed from the Committee’s narrow and explicit instructions and constituted a failure to implement binding legal directions. Therefore, the revised 2017 assessments were quashed and remitted back to SAMA with instructions to comply fully with the Committee’s decisions.

In contrast, the Court upheld the Chambers judge’s findings regarding the 2018 Decision. The Committee’s directive in that year was less specific, merely expecting SAMA to investigate size-related adjustments without mandating any particular outcome. SAMA conducted a statistical analysis and concluded that no reliable correlation existed for properties over 6,000 square feet, given the small sample size. The Court found this investigation to be reasonable and sufficiently explained, affirming the lower court’s decision to dismiss the appeal with respect to the 2018 assessment.

Outcome and implications

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part. The revised assessments for 2017 were quashed and remitted to SAMA for reassessment in accordance with the Committee’s detailed instructions. The appeal concerning the 2018 assessment was dismissed. The decision reinforces the obligation of administrative bodies to comply with the binding directions of quasi-judicial tribunals and clarifies the scope and limits of judicial review in municipal taxation matters.