Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Stephen Cheung challenged the 2025 property assessment of his Victoria single-family dwelling, valued at $2,331,000, arguing the Property Assessment Appeal Board failed to conduct a proper equity analysis under s. 57(1)(a) of the Assessment Act.

• The Board determined the Assessor's $2,500,000 market value conclusion was the best available indication, finding the property was under-assessed at 93% of its estimated market value.

• Appellant's five sales comparables were found unpersuasive due to their substantial distance from the subject property, ranging 2.8 to 13.3 kilometers away.

• Jurisdiction-wide ASR data (97.4% median) and a COD of 6.2% supported the Board's conclusion that assessments were equitably applied across the municipality.

• All three stated questions of law were answered in the negative, with the Court finding each was based on false premises or did not constitute true questions of law.

• Costs were awarded to the Assessor, with the Court rejecting Cheung's public interest argument for denying costs.

The subject property and its assessment

Stephen Cheung owned a single-family dwelling in the Gonzales Bay/Fairfield East neighbourhood of Victoria, British Columbia. The property sat on a rectangular, 11,099-square-foot lot and featured a 4,353-square-foot home built in 2010, with six bedrooms, six bathrooms, a finished basement containing a two-bedroom and two-bathroom secondary suite, and a 462-square-foot detached double garage. For the 2025 tax year, the property was assessed at $2,331,000, split between $1,168,000 for land and $1,163,000 for improvements. Cheung disputed this assessment, and after an unsuccessful complaint to the 2025 Property Assessment Review Panel, he appealed to the Property Assessment Appeal Board (the "Board").

The Board's market value and equity findings

Before the Board, Cheung presented five sales comparables that sold for between $1,950,000 and $3,950,000 during May to December 2024, with an average sale price of $2,870,000. However, the Board noted these comparables were substantially more distant than the other comparables, located 2.8 to 13.3 kilometers from the subject property. The Board found the Assessor's market value analysis to be the only persuasive one, concluding that $2,500,000 was the best estimate of the property's market value as of July 1, 2024. A key comparable, 325 Richmond Avenue, which sold for $2,688,000 in 2024, was found to offer sufficient similarity to warrant comparison. The Board found it was overall slightly superior to the subject property, with its smaller size balanced by the newer house and better location.

In conducting the equity analysis, the Board examined 353 sales of Class 1 residential properties between January and December 2024, which indicated a median assessment-to-sales ratio (ASR) of 97.4% and a coefficient of dispersion (COD) of 6.2%. The subject property's $2,331,000 assessment represented 93% of its estimated $2,500,000 market value. The Board further found the Assessor's eight equity comparables to be located in the same neighbourhood, with similar age, condition, and size, and their assessments varied from $2,228,000 to $2,495,000. The Board also noted that 335 Richmond Avenue had an ASR of 88%, and 174 Joseph Street had only a 14% increase in its assessment over the prior two years, compared to the subject property's 24% increase. The Board concluded that the subject property was under-assessed by more than the average residential property in the jurisdiction and confirmed the decision of the 2025 Property Assessment Review Panel.

The stated case before the Supreme Court

Dissatisfied with the Board's decision, Cheung exercised his right under s. 65 of the Assessment Act to require the Board to refer the decision to the Supreme Court of British Columbia by way of a Stated Case, which is limited to questions of law alone. The matter was heard by the Honourable Madam Justice V. Jackson in Victoria on January 20, 2026, with Cheung appearing on his own behalf. The standard of review of a decision of the Board on a question of law is correctness.

Question 1: whether the Board treated market value as determinative over equity

Cheung's first question alleged that the Board erred by treating fair market value as determinative rather than conducting an equity analysis under s. 57(1)(a) of the Act. The Court found this question was based on a false premise. The Board had properly determined the actual/market value first, as a starting point, and then proceeded to conduct the equity analysis, which involves a consideration of whether there is a basis to depart from actual/market value. The Court noted that the Board had considered the appellant's comparables evidence and found it wanting — both because the comparables were "not helpful in establishing the Subject's market value" and because, for equity purposes, they focused on "low outliers in the comparables" and that such a small, "cherry picked" sample was "not persuasive." The selection or rejection of the appropriate evaluation technique is a question of fact for the Board, provided there is some evidence to support the selection.

Question 2: whether the Board failed to consider in-jurisdiction comparables

The second question alleged the Board erred under s. 57(1)(a) by failing to properly consider in-jurisdiction, functionally comparable non-sales and by mischaracterizing extra-jurisdictional comparables as the appellant's primary evidence. Again, the Court found this question was based on false premises. The Board did consider Cheung's evidence but found it unpersuasive — a factual determination the Board was entitled to make. The Court emphasized that the ASR technique adopted by the Board, which relied on a broad, complete, aggregate sample of all 353 Class 1 residential sales in the jurisdiction that year, provided a jurisdiction-wide, objective assessed value-to-market-sale-price ratio and a standardized benchmark that enabled the Board to check whether the subject property's actual/market value was too high or too low.

Question 3: whether the Board's reasons were inadequate

The third question alleged the Board erred by issuing inadequate and internally inconsistent reasons, particularly between paragraphs 26 and 42, 43, 44, 45 of its decision, thereby failing to address the appellant's equity evidence and contravening the duty of justification and intelligibility required by administrative law. The Court agreed with the Assessor that this was not a question of law. Even if it were, the Court found it was based on a false premise because the Board did address Cheung's equity evidence and the arguments he advanced based on that evidence. The Board simply found his evidence wanting and unpersuasive and gave reasons soundly supporting their view. The Court further noted there is no obligation to address every piece of evidence, and the Board's reasons were not internally inconsistent.

The ruling and outcome

The Court answered all three stated questions in the negative and dismissed Cheung's appeal by way of Stated Case in its entirety. The Assessor of Area #01 – Capital was the successful party. The Court rejected Cheung's argument that costs should not follow the event on public interest grounds, reasoning that it was Cheung who chose to pursue the appeal with respect to the assessment of his property, that he was the potential beneficiary if he had won, and that the costs of his loss should not be borne by the public. The Court exercised its discretion under s. 65(8) to award costs to the Assessor payable by the appellant, and if the amount is not agreed to as between the parties, it is to be assessed and determined by the Registrar. No specific monetary amount for costs was fixed by the Court.