Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Whether the Committee erred in law by limiting disclosure obligations solely to section 200 of The Cities Act

• The extent of an assessor’s disclosure obligations under principles of procedural fairness in assessment appeals

• Whether the Board failed to analyze the relevance of undisclosed information requested by the appellant

• Application of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal’s guidance in Southland regarding disclosure in property tax appeals

• Whether the failure to order further disclosure may have prejudiced the appellant’s ability to present its case

• Whether a de novo hearing was required to remedy procedural unfairness in the appeal process

Background of the dispute

Canada Life Assurance Company appealed the 2021 property tax assessment of its Class A office tower in Regina, which had been assessed at $42.3 million using the income approach. The City’s assessor had developed the capitalization rate (CAP rate) based on sales of a wide variety of general commercial properties, not limited to comparable office towers. The assessor employed multiple regression analysis (MRA) but withheld certain detailed statistical data and raw inputs used to generate the CAP rate.

Canada Life sought disclosure of this “undisclosed information,” including unmasked rent data, testing results, and model syntax, arguing that it was essential to assess whether the CAP rate was valid. The Board of Revision denied the disclosure request, ruling that the assessor had complied with the disclosure required under section 200 of The Cities Act. The Board upheld the assessment.

Canada Life appealed further to the Municipal Board’s Assessment Appeals Committee, which affirmed the Board’s decision, finding no breach of fairness or disclosure obligations. Canada Life then appealed to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.

Issues on appeal

Canada Life argued that the Committee erred by confining disclosure to the statutory minimum and ignoring principles of procedural fairness recognized in the Court’s 2022 Southland decision. It also contended that the failure to compel disclosure prejudiced its ability to know the case to meet and properly contest the assessment. The City responded that Canada Life’s position was overly broad and incompatible with the structure of the property tax appeal regime, which emphasizes efficiency, informality, and annual tax finality.

Court’s findings

The Court of Appeal agreed with Canada Life that the Committee erred in law. It reaffirmed that under Southland, procedural fairness requires assessors to disclose all information relevant to the assessment once an appeal is filed—not just what is mandated under section 200. The Court criticized the Board and Committee for failing to analyze whether the undisclosed information was relevant to Canada Life’s grounds of appeal. It held that this omission undermined procedural fairness and could have affected Canada Life’s ability to fully advance its case, including possible amendments to its appeal notice.

The Court emphasized that disclosure obligations are linked to the issues raised on appeal and should be sufficiently broad to enable appellants to know the case to be met. It rejected both an unrestricted “fishing expedition” approach and the City’s overly narrow interpretation tied strictly to section 200.

Conclusion

The Court allowed Canada Life’s appeal, set aside the Committee’s decision, and ordered a de novo hearing before the Committee. It declined to award costs, noting that the Committee had decided the case before the Southland decision was released.