Executive Summary: Key legal and evidentiary issues

• Interpretation of section 200 of The Cities Act regarding the Assessor’s disclosure obligations

• Whether common law procedural fairness principles demand enhanced disclosure beyond statutory requirements

• Assessment of whether the Board erred by refusing to compel production of requested information

• Legality of grouping neighborhood mall properties with general commercial properties for assessment

• Appropriateness of using multiple regression analysis (MRA) in developing rent and capitalization rate models

• The Committee’s failure to properly apply relevant appellate case law in its decision

Facts of the case

Concorde Group Corp. owns a strip mall in downtown Regina. In 2021, the City of Regina’s Assessor valued 44 neighborhood mall properties, including Concorde’s, using the income approach supported by multiple regression analysis (MRA). The properties were classified as retail strip (commercial) and grouped within a broader commercial category to develop rent and capitalization rate models. Concorde disputed this grouping, arguing that it failed to reflect market realities and compromised equity in assessments.

Following receipt of its assessment, Concorde sought full disclosure of the data used to build the Assessor’s model. The City provided limited information but refused to release key items such as the individual rents, regression results, and full data sets. Concorde appealed to the Regina Board of Revision, challenging both the lack of disclosure and the comparability of the assessment. The Board dismissed the appeal, holding that The Cities Act did not mandate broad pre-hearing disclosure and that Concorde’s requests exceeded statutory obligations.

Concorde then appealed to the Assessment Appeals Committee of the Saskatchewan Municipal Board. The Committee upheld the Board’s decision, relying heavily on the statutory language of section 200 of The Cities Act and applying the Baker v Canada factors to procedural fairness. The Committee concluded that the disclosure provided complied with the Act and that refusing an adjournment was not unfair.

Outcome of the case

The Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan reviewed Concorde’s appeal alongside a related case, Canada Life Assurance Company v Regina (City). The Court found that both the Board and the Committee had failed to properly consider whether the requested undisclosed information was relevant to the assessment appeal and whether procedural fairness required broader disclosure. The Court noted that the prior decisions relied too heavily on a narrow interpretation of the statutory disclosure requirements without addressing evolving appellate jurisprudence.

In light of these errors, the Court allowed Concorde’s appeal, set aside the Committee’s decision in its entirety, and remitted the matter for reconsideration. The Court emphasized the need to consider its prior rulings in SBLP Southland Mall Inc. v Regina (City) and Boardwalk REIT Property Holdings Ltd. v Regina (City). No order as to costs was made.