BC Supreme Court Tells Property Assessment Appeal Board to STOP Blocking Best Market Value Evidence

Assessor Area #1 – Capital v. Lehigh Portland Cement Limited, 2010 BCSC 193

The Property Assessment Appeal Board was ignoring tendered bids for a complicated acreage appeal- literally the best market evidence available to establish actual, “market” value for Assessment purposes.

http://www.assessmentappeal.bc.ca/law-library/significant-court-cases/

The BC Supreme Court said to the Board:

“[40] I am also persuaded that the conclusion of the Panel Chair would place an unreasonable burden on the Board and the parties to an appeal when issues of document disclosure arise. It seems to me that it will be in many cases difficult if not impossible to determine whether production of a particular document is necessary, as that term has been defined by the Panel Chair. Introducing the concept of necessity into a consideration of whether to receive information which would not otherwise be admissible under the rules of evidence makes considerable sense at the hearing stage of an appeal. To attempt to determine whether a particular document is necessary to a determination of an issue at the pre-appeal stage seems to me to be impracticable.”

“[42] The Panel Chair appears to have proceeded on the basis that s. 34(3)(b) of the ATA was the only legislation authorizing the Board to order production of documents. However s. 46(2) of the Assessment Act gives members of the Board, in performance of their duties, the power to require the production of any record. The definition of “record” contained in the Interpretation Act would.”

“[43] include the documents in issue in this reference. It seems to me that Rule 15(2)(d) gives guidance to a board member conducting an appeal management conference as to how to exercise her power to require production of documents pursuant to s. 46(2) of the Assessment Act. [43] It is to be noted that the powers granted to a member presiding at an appeal management conference are to be exercised in the interests of the efficient conduct of the appeal. It seems to me that the powers set out in s. 15(2)(d) are consistent with the mandate granted to the Board pursuant to s. 11(1) of the ATA, that is the power to make rules respecting practice and procedure to facilitate the just and timely resolution of the matters before it.”