Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The applicant challenged a Board decision declining to award costs after a property assessment dispute.

• Central question was whether the Board erred in law under section 65 of the Assessment Act by not awarding costs.

• Dispute stemmed from conduct during administrative appeal proceedings, not from the substance of the property valuation.

• Court found cost-related decisions are not appealable “decisions on appeal” under section 65.

• Legal jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was limited to questions of law formally raised in a stated case.

• No error of law was found; the stated case was dismissed and costs awarded to the respondent.

Facts and outcome of the case

This cases concerned a real estate dispute over a 2019 property assessment for a townhouse in Vancouver’s Southlands neighborhood. The property was assessed at $3,431,000, a valuation the applicant corporation, 992704 Ontario Limited, contested on grounds that it exceeded actual value and was not equitable compared to similar properties.

The applicant first took the matter to the Property Assessment Review Panel, which upheld the original assessment. It then appealed to the Property Assessment Appeal Board, arguing that the assessment was unfair and also requesting sanctions and a $25,000 costs award against the Assessor due to alleged inappropriate conduct during the proceeding. In response, the Assessor sought sanctions against the applicant’s counsel.

The Appeal Board rejected both the applicant’s and the Assessor’s value estimates, finding the original assessment to be accurate and equitable. It also declined to impose sanctions or award costs to either party, citing that both sides had contested the appeal vigorously and that no exceptional conduct justified cost recovery.

992704 Ontario Limited subsequently filed a stated case with the Supreme Court of British Columbia, arguing that the Board erred in law by not awarding costs against the Assessor. The case turned on whether such a refusal constituted a legal error reviewable under section 65 of the Assessment Act, which allows appeals to the Supreme Court only on questions of law "on appeal" from the Board.

Justice Morishita ruled that a Board’s refusal to award costs in the course of its own proceedings was not a “decision on appeal” as contemplated by section 65. Relying on precedent from South Vancouver Parks Society v. Assessor of Area #09, the court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to review that aspect of the Board’s decision under a stated case procedure. The correct route would be judicial review, not a statutory appeal. As no question of law had been properly raised, the stated case was dismissed.

The court awarded costs to the respondent Assessor at Scale B, unless the applicant filed timely written submissions seeking a different costs order.