Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The application asked whether the Composite Assessment Review Board reasonably reduced the 2023 assessment of the Enbridge Building from approximately $287 million to approximately $280 million rather than the approximately $230 million sought by the owner.
   
• Reasonableness under Vavilov governed the standard of review, requiring the court to assess the Board's reasoning process rather than substitute its own view.
   
• Nine issues were before the Board, with the owner succeeding on two and the City prevailing on the remaining seven.
   
• Capitalization rate formed the central dispute, turning on whether a time adjustment should apply to account for pandemic-related market decline.
   
• Commercial retail unit lease rates for restaurant and bank spaces were also contested, with the owner alleging the Board deferred to the City despite expressing reservations about its methodology.
   
• Three further issues concerning parkade vacancy, office vacancy, and office lease rate were argued only generally, without particularized evidence from the owner.
   

Facts of the case

Kelly Ramsey GP Ltd., represented by Canadian Valuation Group Ltd., sought judicial review of a decision by the Edmonton Composite Assessment Review Board regarding the City's 2023 property tax assessment of the Enbridge Building. The Board had accepted the owner's position on two of nine disputed issues, reducing the assessment from approximately $287 million to approximately $280 million. The owner argued the correct figure should have been approximately $230 million, based largely on an increased capitalization rate of 6.25% rather than the City's 6%. The City did not challenge the two issues decided in the owner's favour. The remaining dispute centred on whether the Board had performed independent analysis on the seven issues decided against the owner, or had simply deferred to the City's positions without adequate scrutiny.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

Assessment review proceeds under the Municipal Government Act, RSA 2000, c M-26, sections 453 to 484.1, which requires that the Board not alter an assessment that is fair and equitable having regard to valuation standards, regulatory procedures, and comparable assessments under section 467(3). Market value is defined in section 1(1)(n) as the amount a property might realize between a willing seller and willing buyer. Section 5 of the Matters Relating to Assessment and Taxation Regulation, 2018 requires assessments to use mass appraisal and reflect typical market conditions for similar properties. A complainant bears the initial evidentiary burden under section 460 to show the assessment may be incorrect, after which the ultimate burden of proving the assessment wrong on a balance of probabilities remains with the complainant, as established in prior Board and court decisions cited in the reasons.

Reasoning and analysis

Justice Lema applied the reasonableness standard from Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, noting the court's role is not to reweigh evidence or conduct a line-by-line search for error. On the capitalization rate, the owner argued the City's 6% rate ignored pandemic-related market decline, relying on a paired-sales analysis showing an average monthly value decrease. The Board found this analysis flawed because the paired properties differed materially in age, class, location, and renovation status, making it unreliable to attribute value changes solely to timing. The Board similarly rejected the owner's interest-rate submissions for lacking concrete evidence of market impact, and accepted the City's adjusted capitalization rate study showing a 5.19% median rate supporting the assessed 6%. Justice Lema found this reasoning demonstrated independent analysis rather than deference, and rejected the owner's argument that the Board should have taken an "intuitively obvious" approach to reducing the rate absent quantifiable evidence. On the CRU lease rates for restaurant and bank spaces, the Board had acknowledged the City's ratio methodology "may or may not be entirely accurate," but Justice Lema held this reflected the operation of the presumption of regularity once the owner's evidence was found flawed, rather than improper deference. For the remaining three issues, parkade vacancy shortfall, office vacancy rate, and office lease rate, the owner offered no detailed submissions beyond a general deference complaint, and the Board's explanations for accepting the City's position on each were found reasonable.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court concluded that the Board reached reasonable conclusions on each contested issue and dismissed the owner's application for judicial review in its entirety. The City was the successful party. Costs of the application were awarded to the City under Schedule C, column 1, with no order made for or against the Board. The decision does not specify a dollar amount for the costs award, as Schedule C costs are calculated by tariff rather than stated as a fixed sum in the judgment.