Kuhn v. Assessor of Area #14 - Surrey/White Rock

Kuhn v. Assessor of Area #14 - Surrey/White Rock

The Board's decision was reasonable: s.19(3) is permissive so no legal error in not considering every listed factor; there was evidence (assessor's expert report and comparable #1) to support the Board's valuation; rejecting a linear application of per‑acre rates from materially larger or smaller parcels was not wrong in principle given evidence of economies of scale; accordingly all stated questions answered no and the appeal is dismissed with costs to the assessor at Scale A.

Citation
2016 BCSC 448
Parties
Applicant: Ruby Kuhn; Respondent Assessor: Assessor of Area #14 - Surrey/White Rock; Respondent Board: Property Assessment Appeal Board
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Stated Case Appeal Under S.65 of the Assessment Act / Supreme Court Appeal From Property Assessment Appeal Board Decision on 2015 Assessment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Board decision and 2015 assessment affirmed.
Legal Topics
Property Assessment, Valuation Methodology, Comparables (linear Vs Curved), Judicial Review of Administrative Decision, Assessment Act Interpretation
Source Language
English
Property Law Taxation Law Administrative Law Property Assessment Valuation Methodology Comparables (linear Vs Curved) Judicial Review of Administrative Decision Assessment Act Interpretation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ruby Kuhn

Applicant

Assessor of Area #14 - Surrey/White Rock

Respondent Assessor

Property Assessment Appeal Board

Respondent Board

Procedural Posture

Stated Case Appeal Under S.65 of the Assessment Act / Supreme Court Appeal From Property Assessment Appeal Board Decision on 2015 Assessment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the Board misinterpret or misapply s.19(3) of the Assessment Act by not considering all enumerated factors?
  2. 2 Did the Board act without any evidence or on a view of the evidence that could not reasonably be entertained?
  3. 3 Was the valuation methodology selected or applied by the Board wrong in principle (linear vs curved comparison of differently sized parcels)?

Ratio Decidendi

The Board's decision was reasonable: s.19(3) is permissive so no legal error in not considering every listed factor; there was evidence (assessor's expert report and comparable #1) to support the Board's valuation; rejecting a linear application of per‑acre rates from materially larger or smaller parcels was not wrong in principle given evidence of economies of scale; accordingly all stated questions answered no and the appeal is dismissed with costs to the assessor at Scale A.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Board decision and 2015 assessment affirmed.

Orders

  • 2015 assessment of the property confirmed at $771,900
  • Appeal dismissed