Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Altus Group Limited sought judicial review after the Central Alberta Regional Assessment Review Board confirmed the City of Red Deer’s 2024 assessment of $22,308,900 for a property containing an MGM Ford dealership.

• The CARB excluded a KIA dealership sales brochure and income approach information from Altus’s rebuttal as new material not included in its initial submission, and the Court held these exclusions were fair and correct.

• A confusing reference in the City’s written response to an income approach was treated by the Court as an erroneous statement that did not change the fact that both parties understood the income approach had not been used to prepare or support the assessment.

• CARB accepted land sales evidence from beyond the traditional three-year window, holding that a five-year window could be used when sales were limited, and it rejected Altus’s dollar-per-square-foot ratios as overly simple and incorrect.

• The Court applied a reasonableness standard of review, cited Vavilov, and concluded that the CARB’s reasons met the required hallmarks of justification, transparency, and intelligibility.

• Altus’s application for judicial review was dismissed, and the decision of the CARB was held to be reasonable.

Background and facts of the case
The City of Red Deer issued a 2024 notice of assessment in the amount of $22,308,900 for a property containing an MGM Ford dealership. Altus Group Limited acted as agent for the registered owner and filed a complaint with the Central Alberta Regional Assessment Review Board challenging this assessment. The CARB confirmed the City’s assessed value, and Altus then sought judicial review of the CARB decision. The City assessed the property using the cost approach (Marshall & Swift cost valuation) for the improvements and the sales comparison approach for the lands. The Marshall & Swift cost valuation assessed the building at $8,232,036, and the sales comparison approach assessed the land at $14,076,900. Altus’s complaint initially identified a preliminary requested assessment of $19,950,000 and alleged a number of flaws with the assessment. In its Complainant Disclosure (Altus Initial Submission), Altus requested an assessment of $11,037,500 and included four dealership comparables, calculating the dollar-per-square-foot ratio in support of that requested value. The City’s disclosure (City Response Submission) argued that the $22,308,900 assessment was fair and equitable. The City contended that the comparables used by Altus were in less desirable locations and provided land sales documentation for the years 2020 to 2023 in support of its position. The City also argued that the dollar-per-square-foot ratio advanced by Altus did not take into account the cost components of the improvements. In its Rebuttal Submission (Altus Rebuttal Submission), Altus argued that the land sales relied on by the City were “pre-facto,” as they fell outside the traditional three-year window. Altus also included a sales brochure for a KIA dealership to support its dollar-per-square-foot argument and provided an income approach argument that supported an alternative requested value of $13,214,780.

CARB hearing and evidentiary rulings
The CARB hearing proceeded on July 22, 2024. As a preliminary matter, the City requested that portions of the Altus Rebuttal Submission be excluded, specifically the KIA dealership sales brochure, which had not been included by either party in their initial submissions, and the income approach methodology, which had not been argued by Altus in its initial submission. The CARB excluded the KIA sales brochure and the pages of the Altus Rebuttal Submission that argued the income approach method. The CARB held that this was new information that had not been included in the initial submission of Altus and therefore should be excluded. On the merits of the complaint, the CARB confirmed the assessment. It expressly rejected the dollar-per-square-foot ratios put forward by Altus and found it appropriate to consider the land sales put forward by the City despite those sales being outside the traditional three-year window. The CARB held that it was acceptable to use a five-year window when there are limited sales. The CARB concluded that the current assessment was a reasonable estimate of the market value for the property and declined to change the assessment.

Positions and issues on judicial review
Altus argued on judicial review that the CARB decision should be set aside and the matter remitted for a new hearing because the CARB hearing was procedurally unfair and, substantively, the decision of the CARB was unreasonable. The identified issues were whether it was procedurally fair for the CARB to exclude the KIA dealership sales brochure and the income approach information, and whether the CARB decision was reasonable. Altus contended that it was procedurally unfair for the CARB to exclude parts of the Altus Rebuttal Submission after the City brought forward new sales comparables and used a different valuation approach, namely the income approach, in the City Response Submission.

Court’s analysis of procedural fairness
The Court held that the CARB decision to exclude the income approach information was fair and correct. Altus relied on a page of the City Response Submission that referred to the income approach methodology and stated that the assessment for the subject property was estimated by way of the income approach to value, and the Court accepted that this reference could be confusing on its face. The Court also accepted the City’s position that this reference could not be read in isolation and was satisfied that it was clear from a review of the record as a whole that both Altus and the City understood that the income approach had not been used in preparing the assessment nor was it a basis being advanced by the City in support of the assessment. The Court concluded that it was appropriate for the CARB to exclude the income approach information in rebuttal and described the erroneous reference in the City Response Submission as a reminder of the need for care when using precedent, boilerplate, or previous documents. The Court further held that the CARB decision to exclude the KIA sales brochure was fair. Altus argued that the KIA dealership sales brochure was admissible because the City included sales comparisons in its Response Submission at specific pages. The City argued that the land sale evidence on those pages was not put forward as sales comparisons evidence but was instead provided in response to and to challenge the evidence and argument of Altus, particularly to show the different market value of unimproved land in different locations and to challenge the dollar-per-square-foot ratio advanced by Altus. The Court agreed with Altus that it was not especially clear on the face of the City Response Submission that the land sales evidence was not being included as sales comparison evidence, but the Court was satisfied on the record as a whole that this was understood by the parties and the CARB.

Court’s reasonableness review and treatment of CARB’s reasons
The Court noted that the law relating to assessments was not in dispute and that both parties relied on the principles set out in Mountain View (County) v Alberta (Municipal Government Board), 2000 ABQB 594, and Bramalea Ltd. v British Columbia (Assessor of Area #09-Vancouver), (1990) 76 DLR (4th) 53, 52 BCLR (2d) 218 (BCCA). The parties agreed, and the Court stated, that the standard of review with respect to the merits of the CARB decision was reasonableness. The Court summarized that under the reasonableness standard, administrative tribunal decisions undergo a robust review guided by the principle of judicial restraint and respect for the distinct role of administrative decision makers, and that courts should intervene only when it is truly necessary to protect the legality, rationality, and fairness of the administrative process, as articulated in Vavilov. Quoting Vavilov, the Court described reasonable decisions as those with internally coherent reasoning that are justified in light of the relevant factual and legal constraints, bearing the hallmarks of justification, transparency, and intelligibility. The Court reiterated that the burden is on the party challenging the decision to show that it is unreasonable and that a decision can be set aside on this basis only where any shortcomings are sufficiently serious and central rather than minor or peripheral. The Court referred to Vavilov’s description of two types of fundamental flaws—failures of rationality internal to the reasoning process and decisions that are untenable in light of the relevant factual and legal constraints—without requiring reviewing courts to categorize failures strictly into one type or the other. The Court expressly stated that the decision of the CARB was reasonable. It found that it was clear the CARB understood the basis of Altus’s complaint and submissions, noting that Altus relied on a square-foot ratio to argue that the assessment was not fair or equitable. The Board held that the square-foot ratio put forward by Altus was overly simple and incorrect, and that the calculations did not take into account differing characteristics of the improvements or of the land, including both land size and location. At the judicial review hearing, Altus argued that a number of grounds set out in its Complaint Form were not specifically addressed by the CARB in its decision. The Court held that this did not render the CARB decision unreasonable and stated that reasonableness review is not a treasure hunt for error and that a reviewing court should not parse an administrative decision maker’s reasons to seize on specific errors. The Court concluded that it was clear the CARB understood the dollar-per-square-foot ratio advanced by Altus and rejected it, and that the reasons and decision met the standard of reasonableness as set out in Vavilov.

Observations on CARB procedures and overall outcome
The Court noted that the Certified Record of Proceedings included a transcript that covered three different matters and recorded that the parties had advised that it was the practice of the CARB to carry over evidence from one matter to another. Counsel for the CARB confirmed this practice. The Court observed that, although carrying over evidence may seem expedient, best practice is for each hearing to be self-contained and for any evidence from one matter that is relevant to another to be entered into evidence during the hearing of the specific matter. The Court explained that this approach ensures the parties and CARB have certainty as to the evidence before the Board on a particular matter and allows each matter to have an independent transcript of proceedings, which facilitates efficient review if judicial review is sought. The Court stated that the risk of carry-over evidence did not manifest itself in this hearing and that this issue did not form part of the judicial review, noting that the comments were made as a suggestion for CARB’s consideration. The matter was heard on November 21, 2025, and the decision was dated at the City of Red Deer, Alberta on February 4, 2026. The Court dismissed the application for judicial review and thereby left in place the CARB’s confirmation that the 2024 assessment of the property was a reasonable estimate of its market value in the amount of $22,308,900.