Facts:
- The Applicants, Canadian Tire Properties Inc. and Filcan Properties Ltd, challenged the assessed value of three "Big Box" retail stores in Medicine Hat, claiming the assessments were unfair compared to similar properties.
- The Medicine Hat Composite Assessment Review Board dismissed the complaint, stating that the Applicants failed to meet their evidentiary burden.
Issues:
- Did the Board misapply the burden of proof, placing it wrongly on the Applicants?
- Was procedural fairness breached by not hearing from the City of Medicine Hat?
- Were the Board’s reasons adequate?
Court's Analysis:
-
Burden of Proof: The Court referenced Ross v. Edmonton (2016), establishing that the complainant must provide some evidence to challenge an assessment, after which the burden shifts to the municipality. The Court found no conflict between Ross and Costco v. Calgary (2022), concluding the Board applied the correct standard.
-
Procedural Fairness: The Court rejected the argument of procedural unfairness, emphasizing that the Applicants failed to meet the initial evidentiary burden, making it unnecessary for the City to present evidence.
-
Adequacy of Reasons: The Court found that the Board provided sufficient reasons and followed a reasonable chain of analysis based on the law and facts.
Conclusion:
- The Court ruled in favor of the Respondents, The City of Medicine Hat and the Medicine Hat Composite Assessment Review Board, dismissing the application.
- Costs were awarded to the City of Medicine Hat. No amount was specified.