ALTUS GROUP LIMITED on behalf of various owners APPLICANT - v. -, 2023 SKKB 129

KING’S BENCH FOR SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2023 SKKB 129 Date: 2023 06 19 Docket: QBG-RG-02558-2021 Judicial Centre: Regina BETWEEN: ALTUS GROUP LIMITED on behalf of various owners APPLICANT - and - SASKATCHEWAN ASSESSMENT MANAGEMENT AGENCY, CITY OF ESTEVAN and RURAL MUNICIPALITY OF ESTEVANNO. 5 RESPONDENTS Counsel: Leonard D. Andrychuk K.C. & Allison L. Graham for the applicant Jeffrey N. Grubb K.C. & Allen T. Berriault for the SaskatchewanAssessment Management Agency JUDGMENT BALDWIN J. June 19, 2023 I.

The Application [1] Altus Group Limited on behalf of various owners [Altus], by way of originating application for judicialreview, seeks judicial review of certain revised property assessments remitted by the respondent, Saskatchewan Assessment ManagementAgency [SAMA], in response to decisions of the Assessment Appeals Committee of the Saskatchewan Municipal Board [Committee].Altus requests a declaration that the revised property assessments are incorrect and/or unreasonable, an order in the nature of certiorarisetting aside or quashing the revised property assessments and an order in the nature of mandamus requiring SAMA to prepare and remitrevised property assessments in accordance with the decisions of the Committee and of this Court.

SAMA opposes the relief sought byAltus. II. Background and Litigation History [2] The Court of Appeal summarized the background of this dispute in part as follows in its decision in Altus Group Limited v Estevan (City), 2021 SKCA 101, 23 MPLR (6th) 9 [Altus CA]: [4] Altus Group Limited [Altus] is the agent for several taxpayers that own commercial properties that are in excess of 6,000 square feetin the City of Estevan [City] and in the Rural Municipality of Estevan No. 5 [Rural Municipality]. SAMA is the assessor that completedthe property tax assessments on the properties.

The owners were dissatisfied with their 2017 assessments and, through Altus, appealedthem to the appropriate boards of revision, pursuant to s. 197 and s. 198 of The Cities Act, SS 2002, c C-11.1, and s. 225 and s. 226 of The Municipalities Act, SS 2005, c M-36.1. One property assessmentin the City and one in the Rural Municipality were chosen to be the subjects of the lead appeals. While they raised several issues, Altus’smain argument was that the assessment model used by SAMA failed to account for and consider the sales data for larger properties.

Theyasserted the assessment to sales ratio [ASR] for properties over 6,000 square feet consistently exceeded 1.0 and SAMA’s failure to adjustfor the impact of size resulted in the overvaluation and, consequently, over-taxation of their properties. [5] The property owners met with mixed success at the boards of revision, resulting in further appeals and a cross-appeal to theCommittee under s. 216 and s. 217 of The Cities Act and s. 246 and s. 247 of The Municipalities Act.

The Committee determined therewas merit to the property owners’ position and rendered two decisions: one for the properties in the City, Various (Altus) v Estevan(City), 2019 SKMB 36 [2017 City Decision]; and one for the properties in the Rural Municipality, Estevan (RuralMunicipality) v Various (Altus), 2019 SKMB 34 [2017 R.M. Decision]. [6] The relevant portions of the 2017 City Decision are as follows: [43] The Cap rates for this sale group are highly variable but the transaction with the 20.61% Cap Rate (6,000 square feet) is not wildlyout of context with the other Cap Rate sales.

SAMA left the sale in the final Cap Rate analysis but discounted its use to validate the 6,000

square foot and larger statistics. SAMA may have had a basis to trim this sale from use in the assessment analysis, but because it is an influence on the assessments, it should be considered in the statistical testing. The parties agreed that, left in, the statistics support an adjustment for larger structures. We must agree. [44] Mr. Gloudemans, an international expert on mass appraisal, stated that “some adjustment for larger properties can be supported, the proposed solution is unreasonable and does not make appraisal sense”. We agree with Mr. Gloudemans.

The graph on page 13 of Altus’ submission to the Board shows the ASRs of the Cap Rate sales versus rent area. Near 6,000 square feet, only a small adjustment is required to the four sales to achieve a median ASR near 1.00. The remaining four sales do not support increasing Cap rates beyond approximately 9,000 square feet. [45] We are unable to rule on the appropriate Cap Rate adjustment.

Accordingly, we must remit the matter back to SAMA to ensure the errors identified in this decision are corrected and that “an accurate, fair and equitable assessment for the property is placed on the assessment roll” (subsection 226(1)(

c) of [ The Cities ] Act ). [7] The relevant portions of the 2017 R.M. Decision are as follows: [29] As we have found in favour of Altus, and have provided direction to SAMA with respect to the calculation of the assessment of the subject properties, no further commentary is required relating to the issues on cross-appeal. … [31] The Committee remits the 2017 property valuations to SAMA. The assessments are to be calculated based upon the data reflected on the graph on page 149 of Tab 5 in Altus’ submission to the Board, which illustrated the ASRs of the Cap Rate sales versus rent area.

Near 6,000 square feet, only a small adjustment is required to the four sales to achieve a median ASR near 1.00. The remaining four sales do not support increasing Cap rates beyond approximately 9,000 square feet. [8] The bottom line to the 2017 City Decision and the 2017 R.M. Decision was that the matters were remitted to SAMA to make adjustments to the assessments based on the directions in the two decisions.

In response, SAMA undertook some further analysis, adjusted the assessed values of the properties by a straight-line amount of 4%, regardless of size, and reported the changes back to the Committee and the property owners. After reviewing these changes, Altus took the position that SAMA had failed to comply with the directions in the remittals. In its view, the directions from the Committee required SAMA to use a curved or incremental reduction in the capitalization rates as the properties increased in size.

For its part, SAMA says that it remitted revised property assessments that corrected the errors identified by the Committee and which ensured that an accurate, fair and equitable assessment was placed on the assessment roll. … [14] A group of substantially the same property owners were also dissatisfied with their 2018 assessments and appealed them to the appropriate boards of revision, pursuant to s. 197 and s. 198 of The Cities Act and s. 225 and s. 226 of The Municipalities Act .

Again, one property assessment in the City and one in the Rural Municipality were chosen to be the subjects of the lead appeals: Acklands-Grainger Inc. and Ryan Scott Smith [Acklands-Grainger]. They continued to be represented by Altus. [15] At the boards of revision, the taxpayers argued that SAMA had erred in numerous aspects with regard to the 2018 municipal tax assessments. While they had several grounds of appeal, their primary argument centered around the use of 2017 data in the 2018 model. In 2018, SAMA had undertaken a reinspection of properties and collected new data.

The property owners argued SAMA erred by continuing to rely on older information and by not implementing the data changes into its 2018 model. They asserted SAMA had failed to adjust for age and to stratify by size based on the new data. The boards of revision dismissed the appeals on all grounds. [16] The property owners further appealed to the Committee and were partially successful: Various (Altus) v Estevan (City) , 2020 SKMB 13 [ 2018 Decision ]. This resulted in a single decision from the Committee remitting the assessments to SAMA with directions.

The following directions related to only one property: Sale 991604 – 1104 5 th Street (9,108 square foot building) [37] Altus’ position to the Board was this property should be classed as open mall and not as general retail. SAMA considered the structure to have an effective age of 1946 (the actual chronological age). Altus pointed out various building permits and testimony of the previous owner indicated the effective age should be newer than its chronological age.

Information from the City showed, in 1995/1996, the upper floor (with an area of approximately 20% of the main floor) was converted from warehouse to residential space. SAMA countered, stating the sale interview did not indicate a need to revisit the effective age, and renovations can be cosmetic and not influence the effective age. We agree with SAMA, money must periodically be spent on buildings to keep them in proper repair and this does not influence the effective age. However, in this case, there is objective evidence the small second floor was modified substantially in 1995/1996.

We find SAMA should revise the effective age to consider the second-floor renovations. In its submission to us, SAMA agreed the building was properly described and valued an open mall. In

summary, we find the effective age should be recalculated as described above, and the property should be valued as an open mall. … [41] In

summary, we find Altus has not proven errors in SAMA’s treatment of 405 Kensington Avenue, 1132-5th Street, or 1112-5th Street. SAMA shall modify the analysis for 1104-5th Street as described in paragraph [37]. [17] The Committee also provided directions that potentially related to all of the properties: [63] Are the errors of sufficient magnitude to require recalibration of the model? We only have confidence in the evidence presented by the parties with respect to a need for an adjustment in Cap Rates for building age. While the various numbers are not identical, the results

are similar (see paragraph [54] on page 21 of SAMA’s submission). Assuming SAMA’s model results are accurate, the base Cap Ratechanges from 8.40% (2017 model) to 8.34% (2018 model), or less than 1%. We do not regard this as consequential. [64] Assuming SAMA’s results are accurate, the age adjustment is revised from 0.09 per year (2017 model) to 0.069 per year (2018model). This is a change of 30% and has a greater impact for older buildings than newer buildings. For example, a 1955 building wouldhave an increase in the Cap Rate adjustment of 3.15% (2017 model) versus 2.415% (2018 model).

A 1985 building would be adjusted0.45% for 2017 and 0.345% for 2018. We find there is adequate evidence to show the 2018 reinspection influenced the analysissufficiently that a new model must be determined using the 2018 data. As stated previously, we do not have confidence in Altus’position an adjustment for building size is warranted. However, we expect SAMA will investigate this issue. [65] Therefore, we remit the assessment to SAMA to derive a new Cap Rate model for the 2018 tax year using the 2018 data. CONCLUSION: [66] The Committee dismisses the appeal on Issues

a) and c). We allow the appeal on Issues

b) and d). Paragraphs [37], [41] and [65]above outline our findings with respect to Issues

b) and d). Due to previous Court of Appeal decisions, SAMA cannot increase theassessments above what they were originally in the 2018 roll. [67] We expect SAMA will undertake these tasks and adjust the assessments according to our directions. [65] Therefore, we remit the assessment to SAMA to derive a new Cap Rate model for the 2018 tax year using the 2018 data. 2.

Further involvement by the Committee [18] As a result of the remittal directions contained in the 2018 Decision, SAMA revised the effective age for the one specific building,undertook some further analysis, and provided a reply to the Committee on March 20, 2020, indicating the steps it had taken in responseto the remittal. The taxpayers, through Altus, immediately expressed dissatisfaction with the actions taken by SAMA. On March 27,2020, Altus further wrote to the Committee and provided detailed reasons why it believed SAMA had failed to comply with theCommittee’s directions.

Altus asked the Committee to do the following: The purpose of this letter is to request the Committee to exercise its powers under

section 54 of The Municipal Board Act and directSAMA to provide further statistical analysis and explanation of the adjustments made to calculate the value in the remittal. We wouldfurther respectfully request the Committee direct SAMA to make the same adjustments for size as directed in the 2017 Decisions[.] … In 994552 N.W.T. Ltd. v Kindersley (Town), 2019 SKCA 77 at para 70, the Court of Appeal noted that this provision gives theCommittee the power to order SAMA to comply with its orders.

A nearly identical provision was found to empower the board to provideclarification of its decisions and further directions, in British Pacific Properties Ltd. v Assessor, Municipality of West Vancouver,. Copies of both cases are provided with this letter.

Section 41 of The Municipal Board Act would similarly provide the Committee with jurisdiction to order SAMA to comply with itsdirections. It is submitted that SAMA is in default of the direction of the Committee in the 2018 Decision to investigate whether an adjustment forbuilding size is warranted, and failing to make the adjustment revealed as necessary by the adjusted data. The Appellants thereforerequest that the Committee order the information SAMA relied on, in their determination of its remittal values for the subject appealsand make the same order for size it did in 2017.

The detailed information sought is outlined in the accompanying attachment identifiedas Appendix A which includes the reasoning and analysis. [19] Sections 41 and 54 of the MBA are as follows: Requiring or forbidding acts 41 In matters within its jurisdiction the board may order and require any person, local authority or board of education to do, within anytime and in any manner specified by the board, any act, matter or thing that the person, local authority or board of education may berequired to do pursuant to any Act, and the board may forbid the doing or continuing of any act, matter or thing in contravention of thatAct or of any regulation, order or direction of the board. … Board authorization to act 54 If default is made by any person, local authority or board of education in the doing of

an act, matter or thing that the board hasauthority, pursuant to this or any other Act, to direct and has directed to be done, the board may authorize any person as it sees fit to dothe act, matter or thing, and in that case the person so authorized may do the act, matter or thing, and the expense incurred in the doing ofit may be recovered from the person, local authority or board of education in default as money paid for and at the request of that person,local authority or board of education and the certificate of the board of the amount expended shall be conclusive evidence of that amount. [20] On April 1, 2020, SAMA provided a further reply with additional information regarding the steps it had taken in response to theremittal.

The taxpayers remained dissatisfied with the response and, on April 3, 2020, wrote to the Committee as follows: “We are inreceipt of SAMA’s letter dated April 1st, 2020 but it does not satisfy our request dated March 27th to the Committee. We wouldrespectfully request a response from the Saskatchewan Municipal Board by April 10th, 2020 to our initial request dated March 27th,2020”.

[21] The Committee responded by letter on April 3, 2020 [Committee Letter]: Thank you for your letters dated March 27, 2020, and April 3, 2020. The Committee does not believe that

Section 54 of The Municipal Board Act ( Act ) can be used to garner further information in the case of a remittal response with which you disagree. Neither do we accept the proposition that

Section 54 may be used to direct the Assessment Appeals Committee of the SMB to rule in a certain fashion as your last paragraph from your first letter asks. Therefore we decline to make the orders requested. You have the right to appeal this decision to the Court of Appeal within 30 days from the date of this decision in accordance with

section 33.1 of the Act .

Written notice should be made to the Registrar, Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan, 2425 Victoria Avenue, Regina SK S4P 4W6, with a copy to our office at the address above. [22] The Committee took no further steps in relation to its remittal to SAMA from the 2018 Decision . [ 3 ] After concluding that neither The Cities Act , SS 2002, c C-11.1 nor The Municipalities Act , SS 2005, c M-36.1 included a method for the Committee to monitor compliance with remittal directions, the Court of Appeal went on to say the following about the availability of judicial review: [82] As it stands, I have concluded that there is no statutory path for a taxpayer to obtain a remedy when they allege that SAMA has not complied with remittal directions after a successful appeal to the Committee.

While the taxpayer may again appeal in a subsequent tax year, that potential future remedy provides cold comfort to a person who, despite their success on appeal, cannot realize the benefit in the year to which the appeal related. However, this does not mean that actions taken, or not taken, by SAMA after the Committee remits a matter to it with directions are not subject to any oversight. Judicial review is available to fill this gap. [83] SAMA was established pursuant to s. 3 of The Assessment Management Agency Act , SS 1986, c A-28.1 , and is a creature of statute.

It has numerous obligations under its home statute, including those under s. 12. It also has obligations under s. 226(5) of The Cities Act and s. 256(5) of The Municipalities Act . Counsel for SAMA properly conceded that judicial review is available to review SAMA’s actions or inactions after a remittal by the Committee. To be clear, SAMA did not concede that judicial review would be successful in either of the two matters at hand, just that the procedure is generally available. [84] The Legislature has set up a comprehensive code dealing with municipal tax matters.

However, if, outside of the procedures that are provided for in that code, a person charged with a statutory obligation – such as SAMA in response to remittal directions – acts in an unlawful way, judicial review is available. It is my view that the Legislature did not intend that a person who believes that SAMA proceeded on an unlawful basis would have no remedy. To the contrary, the Legislature would assume that SAMA would act in a lawful manner, but that, if it failed to do so, taxpayers would have recourse.

Sections 53 and 54 of the MBA have been interpreted in light of the Legislature’s awareness of the availability of the Court of Queen’s Bench to supervise SAMA’s exercise of its statutory authority. [85] The rule of law demands a remedy when a state actor does not comply with the law. This includes a direction from the Committee upon remittal to SAMA. Judicial review of SAMA’s actions or inactions is available to a party who is dissatisfied with SAMA’s response after a remittal.

While judicial review may not be an attractive route for taxpayers who believe SAMA has not complied with remittal directions from the Committee, absent legislative amendment, it appears to be the only option available for the tax year that was the subject of an appeal. [ 4 ] The Court of Appeal decision was released on July 28, 2021. [ 5 ] Altus’s originating application for judicial review was filed and issued on November 26, 2021. Altus seeks the following relief in the originating application for judicial review: 1.

A declaration that the Saskatchewan Assessment Management Agency (“SAMA”) has failed to comply with the remittal directions and/or orders of the Assessment Appeals Committee of the Saskatchewan Municipal Board (the “Committee”) contained in the following decisions: (

a) Various (Altus) v Estevan (City), 2019 SKMB 36 (the “ 2019 City Decision ”) and Estevan Rural Municipality v Various (Altus), 2019 SKMB 34 (the “ 2019 Rural Decision ”)(together with the 2017 City Decision, the “2019 Decisions”; and (

b) Various (Altus) v Estevan (City), 2020 SKMB 13 (the “ 2020 Decision ”) (collectively, the “Appeals” or the “Committee Decisions”) 2. A declaration that the revised property assessments prepared and remitted by SAMA in response to the Committee Decisions are incorrect and/or unreasonable. 3. An order in the nature of certiorari setting aside and/or quashing the revised property assessments remitted by SAMA in response to the Committee Decisions. 4.

An order in the nature of mandamus that SAMA must prepare and remit revised property assessments in accordance with the Committee Decisions and in accordance with the reasons of this Court; and 5. Costs of this application. [ 6 ] SAMA filed a certified copy of the record of proceedings on April 21, 2022. [ 7 ] On August 12, 2022, Altus filed an affidavit of Ryan Simpson, sworn on August 12, 2022, in support of the originating application for judicial review. An affidavit in response on behalf of SAMA was sworn by Darwin Kanius on August 26, 2022 and filed on August 31, 2022.

On application by SAMA, a portion of the affidavit of Ryan Simpson was struck by Labach J. on

November 1, 2022 with costs payable forthwith by SAMA to Altus in the amount of $500.00. [ 8 ] The matter was managed by Tochor J. in chambers on November 10, 2022 pursuant to General Practice Directive #9 and, on November 14, 2022, timelines were set for the filing of the parties’ briefs of law.

Altus’ brief of law was filed on December 12, 2022, SAMA’s brief of law in response was filed on January 16, 2023 and Altus’ brief of law in reply was filed on January 27, 2023. [ 9 ] On February 7, 2023 Chow J. determined, pursuant to General Practice Directive #9, that the parties were ready to proceed to a hearing on March 24, 2023. [ 10 ] The hearing was adjourned on March 24, 2023 by Layh J. with the following directions to the parties: After consultation with counsel, the parties agreed (and the court orders) that, no later than 4:00 p.m. on April 14, 2023: 1.

The Applicant will prepare and serve a proposed draft order, which might include orders in the alternative. 2. The Respondent, upon consultation with the Applicant, will prepare, serve and file a Compendium consisting of the various decisions rendered in the previous proceedings, the remittal responses and all communications relating to the remittal responses. 3. Concurrently with serving and filing the Compendium and having consulted the court file and the Applicant, the Respondent will, by letter, identify all documents that form part of the Record.

After consultation with the Local Registrar a tentative date for the adjourned hearing shall be Wednesday, April 26, 2023. The Local Registrar is directed to set aside one day for the assigned justice to read the materials. [ 11 ] Altus filed a draft order, and the parties filed a joint compendium on April 14, 2023. On the same day, SAMA filed a letter with the court identifying the following documents related to the proceeding which are on the court file: We have reviewed the Court file and confirmed that it is complete.

The following documents are related to this proceeding: 1) Originating Application dated November 26, 2021; 2) USB of the Certified Record of Proceedings. As previously noted on the file, the Record is 7756 pages and thus an electronic copy of the Record was provided to minimize the volume of paper on the Court file. If, however, a paper copy of the record is preferred please let us know and we will supply; 3) The Affidavit of Ryan Simpson, sworn August 12, 2022. Everything after the first sentence in para 62 and Exhibits F, G, and H was struck by the Honourable Mr.

Justice Labach in his November 1, 2022 Fiat; 4) The Affidavit of Ryan Simpson, sworn September 25, 2019, attached as Exhibit C to the Affidavit of Ryan Simpson, sworn August 12, 2022; 5) The Affidavit of Darwin Lee Kanius, sworn November 8, 2019, attached as Exhibit D to the Affidavit of Ryan Simpson, sworn August 12, 2022; 6) The Affidavit of Ryan Simpson, sworn November 13, 2019, attached as Exhibit E to the Affidavit of Ryan Simpson, sworn August 12, 2022; 7) The Affidavit of Darwin Kanius, sworn August 26, 2022; 8) Brief of Law on behalf of Altus, dated December 12, 2022; 9) Brief of Law on behalf of SAMA, dated January 16, 2023; 10) Reply Brief of Law on behalf of Altus, dated January 27, 2023; and 11) Joint Compendium filed April 14, 2023. [ 12 ] The originating application for judicial review was argued before me on April 26, 2023.

After hearing submissions on behalf of Altus and SAMA, I reserved the decision which follows. III. Issues [ 13 ] Altus and SAMA agree upon what properly constitutes the record before me and the agreed to record includes the affidavit evidence described above. While certain portions of Altus’ affidavit evidence were struck by Labach J. on the request of SAMA, there is no indication that either party or the court raised any concern during the management process about the use of affidavit evidence in general.

I have therefore proceeded on the basis that the record, as agreed to by the parties, is the proper record before me. [ 14 ] Altus and SAMA agree that judicial review is available and that the court has jurisdiction on an application for judicial review under the circumstances described in Altus CA . The parties disagree, however, as to whether the circumstances described in Altus CA exist here and as to the proper result or outcome of this particular judicial review proceeding. [ 15 ] The following other issues arise on this application for judicial review: (

i) What decisions, acts or omissions of SAMA are subject to judicial review?

(ii) What did the Committee direct SAMA to do? (iii) What did SAMA do in response to the directions of the Committee? (iv) What is the appropriate standard of review to apply to SAMA’s actions? (

v) Were SAMA’s actions reasonable? (vi) What is the proper result or outcome of this judicial review proceeding? IV. Analysis [ 16 ] The property assessment regime in Saskatchewan has not historically been examined in this Court. This state of affairs can be contrasted with the experience of the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan which routinely hears and determines statutory appeals relating to property assessment.

I do not intend to devote much space in this decision to a study of assessment law and practice as, other than dealing with the unique aspects of the situation before me, I do not have anything to add to the excellent treatise on the subject found in Affinity Holdings Ltd. v Shaunavon (Town) , 2022 SKCA 83 , 474 DLR 94 th ) 71 [ Affinity ]. [ 17 ] For convenience, I will use the same descriptors for the Committee’s decisions as are used in Altus CA – the Committee’s decisions will be referred to as the 2019 SKMB 36 [ 2017 City Decision ], 2019 SKMB 34 [ 2017 R.M.

Decision ] and 2020 SKMB 13 [ 2018 Decision ] respectively. a. What decisions, acts or omissions of SAMA are subject to judicial review? [ 18 ] Pursuant to Rule 3-49(1)(

g) of The Queen’s Bench Rules , an action may be started by originating application if the remedy claimed is the judicial review of a decision, act or omission of a person or body. [ 19 ] Altus CA at para 85 , provides that a taxpayer who is “dissatisfied with SAMA’s response after a remittal” may seek judicial review of “SAMA’s actions or inactions”.

The word “decision” does not appear in Altus CA as it pertains to actions taken, or not taken, by SAMA following a remittal and there is no mention of the revised property assessments prepared by SAMA in this portion of Altus CA . [ 20 ] In its originating application for judicial review, Altus identifies the revised property assessments completed by SAMA in 2017 and 2018 as what it seeks to have judicially reviewed and quashed.

Altus does not use “decisions” to describe the revised assessments. [ 21 ] Counsel for SAMA submits that the application before me relates to the way in which SAMA responded to the remittals from the Committee rather than to the revised property assessments for 2017 and 2018 themselves, referring to SAMA’s “responses” rather than to its “actions”. [ 22 ] Notwithstanding the language used, or not used, in Altus CA and by the parties, it is clear that property assessments constitute decisions of property assessors: Affinity .

In the analysis that follows, I will treat the revised property assessments as decisions and the accompanying response documents and evidence from SAMA as the expressed reasons for those decisions describing the actions taken by SAMA, and thereby identifying the actions not taken by SAMA, in response to the decisions of the Committee.

In this way, the aspects of SAMA’s decision-making in response to the Committee’s remittal decisions can be considered within a rubric which meshes with established case law on judicial review. [ 23 ] As noted above, the Court of Appeal in Altus CA scrupulously avoids reference to the decisions or revised assessments of SAMA in the portion of the court’s decision relating to judicial review, referring instead to SAMA’s actions or inactions. This is no doubt by design rather than by coincidence.

I therefore conclude that the judicial review contemplated by the Court of Appeal in Altus CA relates to the actions taken and not taken by SAMA and does not extend to SAMA’s decisions – the revised property assessments – and I will proceed on this basis. [ 24 ] I have now identified what is properly before me for judicial review and what is not in terms of SAMA’s actions and decisions. In my view, it is important at this juncture to clearly identify something else that is not properly before me for judicial review. It is not my role in this proceeding to judicially review the 2017 City Decision , the 2017 R.M.

Decision or the 2018 Decision . b. What did the Committee direct SAMA to do? [ 25 ] The parties have very different views about what the Committee directed SAMA to do in its remittal decisions. For the 2017 City Decision and the 2017 R.M. Decision , Altus takes the position that the Committee directed SAMA to employ a curved approach to adjusting cap rates for buildings between 6,000 and 9,000 square feet based on data provided to the Committee by Altus. SAMA’s position on the 2017 City Decision and the 2017 R.M.

Decision is that the Committee recognized that some adjustment for size was warranted for buildings over 6,000 square feet but directed no specific adjustment. SAMA says that what the Committee did direct it to do was to ensure that certain identified errors were corrected such that an accurate, fair and equitable assessment for the property is placed on the assessment roll. [ 26 ] Altus CA describes the “bottom line” of the 2017 City Decision and the 2017 R.M.

Decision as follows: [8]…the matters were remitted to SAMA to make adjustments to the assessments based on the directions in the two decisions… [ 27 ] As for the 2018 Decision , Altus submits that, by expressing its expectation that SAMA would investigate the issue of whether an adjustment for building size was warranted, the Committee directed SAMA to investigate this issue and to make similar adjustments to those described above based on the results of the investigation. SAMA concedes that the Committee’s expressed

expectation required SAMA to investigate the issue of whether an adjustment for building size was warranted. [ 28 ] In order to fully understand the analysis which follows, it is necessary to reproduce the following graph [Altus graph]: A picture containing text, diagram, line, plot Description automatically generated [ 29 ] In the 2017 City Decision , the Committee made the following relevant findings: (

i) The statistics and expert evidence before the Committee supported an adjustment for larger structures. (ii) Based on the Altus graph, near 6,000 square feet, only a small adjustment was required to the four sales to achieve a median ASR near 1.00 and the remaining four sales did not support increasing cap rates beyond approximately 9,000 square feet. (iii) The Committee was unable to rule on the appropriate cap rate adjustment. [ 30 ] After making these findings, the Committee remitted the matter to SAMA with the following directions: (

i) Ensure the errors identified in the Committee’s decision are corrected and that “an accurate, fair and equitable assessment for the property is placed on the assessment roll”. [ 31 ] In the 2017 R.M. Decision , the Committee indicated that it found in favour of Altus and remitted the matter to SAMA with the following direction(s): (

i) Calculate the assessments based on the data reflected in the Altus graph. Near 6,000 square feet, only a small adjustment is required to the four sales to achieve a median ASR near 1.00 and the remaining four sales do not support increasing cap rates beyond approximately 9,000 square feet. [ 32 ] In the 2018 Decision , the Committee made the following relevant findings: (

i) The Committee had confidence in the evidence presented by the parties with respect to a need for an adjustment in cap rates for building age. (ii) The Committee did not have confidence in Altus’ position that an adjustment for building size was warranted but expected SAMA to investigate this issue. (iii) There was adequate evidence to show the 2018 reinspection influenced the analysis sufficiently that a new model must be determined using the 2018 data. [ 33 ] After making these findings, the Committee remitted the matter to SAMA with the following directions: (

i) Derive a new cap rate model for the 2018 tax year using the 2018 data but do not increase assessments above what they were originally in the 2018 roll. (ii) Undertake these tasks and adjust the assessments according to the Committee’s directions. [ 34 ] Altus takes no issue with SAMA’s response to the direction at (

i) above. As such, the issue of a new cap rate model for 2018 using 2018 data is not before me on this application.

c. What did SAMA do in response to the directions of the Committee? [ 35 ] Altus CA describes SAMA’s actions in response to the 2017 City Decision and the 2017 R.M. Decision as follows: [8]… In response, SAMA undertook some further analysis, adjusted the assessed values of the properties by a straight-line amount of 4%, regardless of size, and reported the changes back to the Committee and the property owners… [ 36 ] In its evidence before me, which was also before the Court of Appeal, SAMA adds the following details about its actions in response to the 2017 City Decision and the 2017 R.M. Decision : (

i) SAMA reviewed all 31 data points contained in the Altus graph (data points for buildings smaller than 6,000 square feet and data points for buildings larger than 6,000 square feet). (ii) Of the eight data points for overvalued properties over 6,000 square feet, four are at or near a 1.00 ASR and one is extreme but does not affect the analysis because the analysis focuses on median ASRs.

This leaves three data points which SAMA found to be of marginal influence for an array of 31 data points. (iii) Due to what it found to be the marginal influence of the three data points described above, SAMA decided to apply a 4% outside the model straight line adjustment to the eight overvalued properties. (iv) The 4% adjustment maintains a semblance of balance between the properties under and over 6,000 square feet with the smaller properties undervalued by approximately 7% and the larger properties overvalued by approximately 5.5% resulting in a median ASR of 0.989. [ 37 ] As for the 2018 Decision , SAMA described its investigation as follows in its March 20, 2020 response to the Committee: The issue of rent size was tested by plotting the ASR’s against the rent size.

The ASR’s were fitted with a Loess curve. Three distinct groups emerged, namely: ➢ =<2,250 square feet, median ASR 0.997 with 10 sales; ➢ 2251 to 4,400 square feet, median ASR 0.916 with 12 sales; and ➢ greater than 4.400 square feet, median ASR 1.031 with 9 sales. As with the effective age model, any size relationship requires a proper sample size to determine a statistically reliable model. When looking at the scatter plot, it is natural to be drawn to the end of the plot. There are only three sales above the 7,500 square feet, which is not enough observations to make a statistically reliable model adjustment.

Therefore, it is SAMA’s conclusion that no additional adjustment is required for the rent size based on the median ASR results combined with the equal distribution of the sales. [Emphasis added] [ 38 ] Altus responded to SAMA’s 2018 remittal response on March 27, 2020, taking issue with SAMA’s approach on the basis that the approach did not investigate whether an adjustment was warranted specifically for buildings over 6,000 square feet. [ 39 ] SAMA provided a further reply on April 1, 2020 indicating, in part, as follows: Regarding the review on size, the scatter plot produced by SAMA in support of the three size bands point to a trend starting at about 4400 square feet.

It is noteworthy to point out that 5 of the 9 sales in this size band are below or at an ASR of 1.00. Further, 4 sales from 6,000 square feet to approximately 7,500 square feet are straddling the 1.00 ASR line, which leave only 3 sales beyond 7,500 square feet that have ASR’s in excess of 1.00. This small sample size is considered a statistically unreliable measure for size. While one’s gaze tends to focus the attention to the right side of the scatter plot, the left side of the scatter plot, also produces a sample of 3 sales for a unit size less than 2,000 square feet.

This group of sales have ASR’s within a similar range over 1.00 as the properties over 7,500 square feet. As with the effective age model, any size relationship requires a proper sample size to determine a statistically reliable model. d. What is the appropriate standard of review to apply to SAMA’s actions? [ 40 ] Both parties agree that the starting point for this portion of the analysis is Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65 , [2019] 4 SCR 653 [ Vavilov ].

Altus takes the position that two different standards of review apply here – the standard of reasonableness for my “general review” of SAMA’s decisions (the revised assessments) and the standard of correctness for my consideration of SAMA’s actions (whether SAMA complied with the Committee’s directions). SAMA, on the other hand, argues that the standard of review to be applied to all of its actions and responses is that of reasonableness. [ 41 ] Pursuant to Vavilov , there is a presumption that the standard of review on judicial review is reasonableness.

A reviewing court may only derogate from this presumption under certain limited circumstances. To date, the Supreme Court of Canada

has identified six categories of situation where the presumption of reasonableness can be rebutted, five in Vavilov and one in Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v Entertainment Software Association , 2022 SCC 30 , 471 DLR (4 th ) 391 [ Entertainment Software ].

The six categories are described as follows in Entertainment Software : [26] Vavilov recognized five categories for correctness review: legislated standards of review, statutory appeal mechanisms, constitutional questions, general questions of law of central importance to the legal system as a whole, and questions related to the jurisdictional boundaries between two or more administrative bodies (paras. 17 and 69).

None of these categories justifies applying a correctness standard of review to situations of concurrent administrative and court first instance jurisdiction. [27] Nevertheless, I would apply a correctness standard of review to the Board’s decision. Vavilov did not “definitively foreclose the possibility that another category could be recognized as requiring a derogation from the presumption of reasonableness review”: Vavilov , at para. 70 .

In rare and exceptional circumstances, new correctness categories can be recognized when applying reasonableness would undermine legislative intent or the rule of law in a manner analogous to the five correctness categories discussed in Vavilov at paras. 23 and 70 . [28] This is one of those rare and exceptional circumstances where it is appropriate to recognize a new category of correctness review: when courts and administrative bodies have concurrent first instance jurisdiction over a legal issue in a statute.

Applying correctness to these issues accords with legislative intent and promotes the rule of law. [ 42 ] There is no suggestion that a new category should be created in the case at bar—this was confirmed by Altus in counsel’s oral submissions before me. [ 43 ] Altus submits that the situation where a state actor like SAMA does not follow the law (by not complying with the Committee’s directions) falls within the existing categories of legislated standards of review and general questions of law of central importance to the legal system as a whole and is therefore a situation where the presumption of reasonableness can be rebutted, and a correctness review is warranted.

SAMA argues that neither of these categories applies in the case at bar. [ 44 ] In connection with the legislated standards of review category, Altus takes the position that, because there is correctness review on questions of law throughout the statutory appeal process relating to property assessment, which process was created by the legislature, it is inconsistent to accord SAMA deference in a judicial review proceeding at this final stage of the assessment proceeding and it could render the statutory appeal procedure meaningless.

In my view, the legislative framework here does not amount to a legislated standard of review as described in Vavilov . It is clear that the legislated standard of review category only applies to situations where “a legislature has indicated that courts are to apply the standard of correctness” ( Vavilov at para 35 ), which is not the case here. There is no suggestion in the legislation that the standard of review on this judicial review is to be correctness.

Indeed, the availability of judicial review under these circumstances is not even mentioned in the relevant legislation. [ 45 ] While, on initial reflection, the argument of Altus about the application of the general questions of law of central importance to the legal system as a whole category is more persuasive, upon closer consideration I conclude that this category also does not apply here based on the following analysis. [ 46 ] In Vavilov at para 62 , the court indicates that a general question of law of central importance to the legal system as a whole requires a single determinative answer which is why correctness review is necessary.

It is undoubtedly of central importance to the legal system as a whole that state actors comply with the law. Indeed, Altus CA specifically invokes the rule of law as demanding a remedy where this does not occur. [ 47 ] I am not convinced, however, that there is a question of law here which approaches those quasi-constitutional questions identified at paras. 59 and 60 of Vavilov . While the issue is of central importance, there is no question or controversy about the law on this point that needs to be resolved. There is no suggestion that a state actor, like SAMA, does not have to comply with the law.

What is at issue is whether SAMA, in fact, complied with the law in this particular case. This question is not of central importance to the legal system as a whole. [ 48 ] I therefore conclude that the situation before me does not fall within any of the existing categories where correctness review might be appropriate. As such, the appropriate standard of review to apply to SAMA’s actions is the reasonableness standard of review described in Vavilov . e.

Were SAMA’s actions reasonable? [ 49 ] The onus here is on Altus to establish that SAMA’s actions were unreasonable. [ 50 ] Pursuant to Vavilov , in examining the reasonableness of SAMA’s actions, I must examine the following two factors: (

i) Did SAMA’s actions stay within the constraints to which SAMA was subject? (ii) Was SAMA’s reasoning rational and logical and sufficient? i. Did SAMA’s actions stay within the constraints to which SAMA was subject? [ 51 ] In order to determine whether SAMA’s actions stayed within the constraints to which SAMA was subject, I must first identify those constraints. [ 52 ] First and foremost, SAMA is constrained by the 2017 City Decision , the 2017 R.M. Decision and the 2018 Decision and the directions made therein.

Both parties agree that, where the Committee, in a decision, directs SAMA to do something and SAMA does not appeal that decision, SAMA must follow the Committee’s direction. The existence of this particular constraint is

unique to this type of application for judicial review. [ 53 ] It is possible to conceive of a situation where a decision of the Committee is practically and legally the only constraint to which SAMA is subject. Altus suggests that this is one of those situations and takes issue with SAMA considering itself subject to other constraints in its decision-making process.

I agree that, where the Committee gives clear direction leaving no discretion to SAMA, SAMA must either appeal the Committee’s decision or comply with it without any exercise of discretion. [ 54 ] There will also be situations, however, where the Committee’s decision leaves discretion to SAMA.

In those situations, in my view, it will not be unreasonable for SAMA to consider itself bound by other constraints in its exercise of discretion. [ 55 ] The concepts set out above were more articulately described in Affinity as follows (although in the context of a reasonableness review by the Board of Revision, not a judicial review): [103]… an assessor’s discretion may be precisely circumscribed using narrow language that delineates the discretion in detail, thereby tightly constraining the assessor’s ability to exercise that discretion.

Conversely, a principle of assessment law and practice may be broadly worded or open-ended, granting assessors greater flexibility in interpreting the meaning of that language and in the exercise of their discretion. Other principles of assessment law and practice will fall somewhere between these two edges. [104] This means that certain language relating to the scope of an assessor’s authority or discretion may support more than one

interpretation of it, while other language may support only one

interpretation… [ 56 ] It is helpful at this juncture to look again at the relevant directions of the Committee to SAMA. [ 57 ] In the 2017 City Decision , the Committee’s direction to SAMA was: Ensure the errors identified in the Committee’s decision are corrected and that “an accurate, fair and equitable assessment for the property is placed on the assessment roll”.

The errors identified in the Committee’s decision were that the statistics and expert evidence before the Committee supported an adjustment for larger structures and that, based on the Altus graph, near 6,000 square feet, only a small adjustment was required to the four sales to achieve a median ASR near 1.00 and the remaining four sales did not support increasing cap rates beyond approximately 9,000 square feet. [ 58 ] In the 2017 R.M. Decision , the Committee’s direction to SAMA was: Calculate the assessments based on the data reflected in the Altus graph.

Near 6000 square feet, only a small adjustment is required to the four sales to achieve a median ASR near 1.00 and the remaining four sales do not support increasing cap rates beyond approximately 9000 square feet. [ 59 ] In the 2018 Decision , the Committee’s relevant direction to SAMA was: The Committee expected SAMA to investigate the issue of whether an adjustment for building size was warranted. [ 60 ] In my view, all of these directions leave some discretion to SAMA. None of them is sufficiently specific to create a situation where, practically and legally, the decision is the only constraint on SAMA.

None of them supports only one

interpretation. The direction made in the 2017 City Decision specifically uses the broadly worded, discretion laden language from s. 226(1) (

c) of The Cities Act under which SAMA is to ensure that an accurate, fair and equitable assessment is placed on the assessment roll. It is true that SAMA is left no discretion as to which errors must be corrected but the method of correction is not specified. While the language of the direction in the 2017 R.M. Decision provides more delineation by identifying the data to be considered by SAMA in calculating revised assessments, it leaves the other details of the calculation in SAMA’s hands.

Finally, the Committee’s expectation of an investigation (which is not even clearly identified as a direction in the 2018 Decision ) without addressing the nature, extent or consequences of the investigation necessarily requires an exercise of discretion by SAMA. [ 61 ] The following list of potential constraints on a decision maker is found in Vavilov : [106]… the governing statutory scheme; other relevant statutory or common law; the principles of statutory

interpretation; the evidence before the decision maker and facts of which the decision maker may take notice; the submissions of the parties; the past practices and decisions of the administrative body; and the potential impact of the decision on the individual to whom it applies… [ 62 ] In the case before me, in addition to the 2017 City Decision , the 2017 R.M. Decision and the 2018 Decision, SAMA is subject to the principles of assessment law and practice, which are enumerated in paras. 78 and 82 of Affinity as follows: [78] Assessment law is: (

a) the CA [ The Cites Act, SS 2002, c C-11.1 ], the MA [ The Municipalities Act, SS 2005, c M-36.1 ], the NMA [ The Northern Municipalities Act, 2010, SS 2010 , c N-52], the AMAA [ The Assessment Management Agency Act , SS 1986, c A-28.1 and their respective statutory instruments; (

b) this Court’s jurisprudence; (

c) the decisions of the Committee with respect to the property in question ( AMAA, s. 22(12.1); MA , s. 195(4.1); CA , s. 165(3.2); NMA , s. 218(4.1)); and (

d) the Manual [ Saskatchewan Assessment Manual (2019 Base Year)( Regina: SAMA, 2019)], as adopted pursuant to s. 12(1)(

d) of the AMAA.

… [82] Assessment practice refers to the principles of property assessment that do not have the status of being recognised as assessment law but nevertheless direct the practice of assessors in the preparation of assessments. This includes (without limitation) the directing principles set forth in: (

a) decisions of the Committee, other than those in respect of the property in question; (

b) decisions of boards of revision; (

c) the Handbook [ Market Value Assessment in Saskatchewan Handbook , ver 3 (Regina: SAMA, 2019)]; (

d) the Cost Guide [ SAMA’s 2019 Cost Guide, ver 1.1 (Regina: SAMA, 2019) and other SAMA Guidelines ; (

e) publications of the International Association of Assessing Officers [IAAO], including Assessment Administration (Chicago: IAAO, 2003), Property Assessment Valuation (Chicago: IAAO, 2010), Fundamentals of Mass Appraisal (Chicago: IAAO, 2011), and Glossary for Property Appraisal and Assessment (Chicago: IAAO, 1997); (

f) the Marshall & Swift Valuation Service (CoreLogic Inc.); and (

g) the Marshall & Swift Residential Cost Handbook (CoreLogic Inc.) [ 63 ] One significant constraint on SAMA is satisfaction of the market valuation standard. It is uncontroversial that the achievement of equity is the dominant and controlling factor in the assessment of property – both parties before me agree on this point. The satisfaction of the market valuation standard is fundamental to the achievement of equity: CP Reit S Real Estate Limited v Saskatoon (City) , 2021 SKCA 100 . [ 64 ] In Affinity , the

interpretation of the market valuation standard is summarized as follows: [233] The market valuation standard is achieved when the assessed value of a property (or a group of properties): (

a) is an estimate of the market value of the estate in fee simple in the property as of the first day of January in the first year of a four- year property valuation cycle; (

b) is determined under a process of assessing the market values of a group of properties using one of the income, cost or sales- comparison methods of appraisal and by consistently employing complete, accurate and current data in the chosen method of appraisal in a way that allows for the statistical confirmation or disconfirmation of the reliability of the estimates of market value it produces and that allows for the determination of whether there are modifications to the appraisal method or to the data that might produce more reliable estimates; (

c) reflects the typical market conditions for properties with similar physical characteristics and similar value-driving characteristics; and (

d) has a median assessed value to adjusted sale price ratio [ASR] that falls between 0.950 and 1.050. [ 65 ] Altus argues that SAMA’s use of a 4% straight line adjustment for 2017 ignores the 2017 City Decision and the 2017 R.M. Decision in favour of other illegitimate constraints.

In particular, Altus says that it was unreasonable for SAMA to consider itself subject to maintaining the median ASR of its model (as opposed to the entire municipality) within the range of 0.95 to 1.05 and to consider itself subject to maintaining a balance between properties over and under 6,000 square feet when arriving at the revised assessments for 2017 thereby maintaining the inequity found by the Committee. [ 66 ] SAMA’s position is that it did not ignore the Committee’s 2017 decisions but that its actions (its use of a 4% straight line adjustment for 2017) were based upon a consideration of the Committee’s decisions as well as other relevant principles of assessment law and practice, particularly the market valuation standard and the need to ensure an accurate, fair and equitable assessment.

In connection with the ASR concern raised by Altus, SAMA notes that the market valuation standard is determined by looking at a group of properties, such as the group of properties found in its model here, and has an ASR falling between 0.95 and 1.05. SAMA submits that its actions and decisions were reasonable in light of the constraints to which it was subject. [ 67 ] In my view, on the basis of the evidence before me, the actions taken by SAMA in response to the Committee’s 2017 decisions stayed within the constraints to which SAMA’s decision making was subject.

SAMA made an adjustment in favour of properties over 6,000 square feet after considering all of the data in the Altus graph and the need to ensure an accurate, fair and equitable assessment, all in accordance with the Committee’s 2017 decisions. In making the adjustment, SAMA relied upon assessment law and practice, including the

interpretation of the market valuation standard and ASR, as well as its own understanding or position on statistical significance. While there are no doubt other courses of action that could have been taken within the constraints upon SAMA, that does not take what SAMA did outside those constraints. [ 68 ] SAMA made no adjustments on the basis of building size in response to the 2018 Decision .

Altus maintains that, as a result of the 2018 Decision , SAMA was subject to a constraint requiring it to focus its investigation on properties over 6,000 square feet and to adjust the assessments for building size in a way similar to what Altus expected for 2017.

SAMA points out that the 2018 Decision only directs an investigation and maintains, in any event, that the investigation results did not indicate the need for an adjustment for building size. [ 69 ] The 2018 Decision directs SAMA to investigate the issue of whether an adjustment for building size was warranted without specifying any necessary aspects of the investigation. It is uncontroverted that an investigation (according to SAMA) or statistical testing (according to Altus) took place. SAMA described its investigative actions in its remittal responses dated March 20

and April 1, 2020. [ 70 ] Based upon my reading of the 2018 Decision , it does not require SAMA to focus its investigation on properties over 6,000 square feet or to make an adjustment for 2018 on the basis of building size. SAMA was not subject to those constraints on its decision-making.

SAMA was subject to a constraint requiring it to investigate and to the principles of assessment law and practice and it operated within these constraints. [ 71 ] I will discuss whether SAMA’s investigative reasoning was rational and logical below. [ 72 ] In my view and based on the foregoing analysis, SAMA’s actions which are the subject of this application stayed within the constraints to which SAMA was subject. ii. Was SAMA’s reasoning rational, logical and sufficient? [ 73 ] Altus makes no assertion that SAMA’s reasoning was insufficient.

I will therefore focus this part of my analysis on whether SAMA’s reasoning was rational and logical. [ 74 ] The Court of Appeal describes this aspect of a reasonableness review of a decision of an assessor as follows in Affinity : [97] To be reasonable, on the other hand, an assessor’s decision must be based on reasoning that is both rational and logical. A decision is reasonable if the conclusion reached follows logically from the analysis undertaken.

A decision is reasonable if the written explanation of how the assessment was determined read in conjunction with the record and the evidence adduced make it possible to understand the assessor’s reasoning on a critical point. A decision is, however, unreasonable if the explanation of it exhibits logical fallacies, such as circular reasoning, false dilemmas, unfounded generalizations, or an absurd premise. [ 75 ] This is an unusual situation in that SAMA’s reasoning following the Committee’s 2017 decisions was not apparent at the time that the 2017 revised assessments were arrived at.

Rather, SAMA’s reasoning is found in the affidavit evidence subsequently filed with the court and referred to above. I note again that Altus makes no assertion before me that SAMA’s reasoning was insufficient. [ 76 ] In its submissions to me, Altus did not specifically impugn the 2017 revised assessments on the basis that SAMA’s reasoning was not rational and logical, focusing instead on the defensibility of those decisions in light of the constraints that SAMA was subject to. I have dealt with the arguments relating to constraints above.

In the interests of completeness, I will address the issue of whether SAMA’s reasoning following the 2017 City Decision and the 2017 R.M. Decision was rational and logical below. [ 77 ] According to its affidavit evidence, in responding to the Committee’s 2017 decisions, SAMA first reviewed all of the data from the Altus graph, for 31 properties over and under 6,000 square feet. It then focused on the eight over 6,000 square foot data points, concluding that the three data points over 6,000 square feet that were not at or near a 1.00 ASR were “of marginal influence” to the full array of data.

SAMA therefore decided to apply a 4% straight line adjustment to the properties over 6,000 square feet which would address the overvaluing of those properties to some extent while maintaining a balance with the smaller properties and an acceptable median ASR. [ 78 ] In my view, SAMA’s reasoning, as described in its affidavit evidence, is logical. I am able to understand SAMA’s reasoning as to why, in its view, a 4% straight line adjustment was appropriate.

I see no logical fallacies, circular reasoning, false dilemmas, unfounded generalizations or absurd premises in SAMA’s reasoning following the Committee’s 2017 decisions. [ 79 ] Altus argues that SAMA’s reasoning leading to the 2018 revised assessments was not rational and logical on the basis that it did not “add up.” Specifically, Altus interprets the results of SAMA’s statistical testing as not supporting SAMA’s finding of three distinct groups of sales based on rent size.

SAMA counters that its finding was based, in part, on its position that the sample size of buildings over 7,500 square feet was statistically unreliable. Altus disagrees that the sample size was statistically unreliable. [ 80 ] It is clear from the evidence filed and the positions taken by the parties before me that there may be differing opinions on statistical reliability, even among experts.

I do not find SAMA’s particular characterization of the reliability of the sample size over 7,500 square feet to be an absurd premise or otherwise unreasonable. [ 81 ] SAMA’s responses to the direction to investigate made in the 2018 Decision remittal describe the nature and results of its investigation as well as explaining SAMA’s position on sample size and statistical reliability.

In my view, the reasoning in SAMA’s responses does logically add up, particularly in light of the open ended, non-specific investigation described in the 2018 Decision . [ 82 ] On the basis of the foregoing analysis, I find that SAMA’s reasoning in its responses to the 2017 City Decision , the 2017 R.M. Decision and the 2018 Decision assessments was both rational and logical.

Adding this finding to my determination above that SAMA acted within the constraints to which it was subject, I conclude that SAMA’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances of this case. [ 83 ] If I am wrong about the scope of judicial review contemplated in Altus CA and it should, in fact, extend to the decisions made by SAMA (the revised assessments), I would find the revised assessments to be reasonable on the basis of the record before me and the foregoing analysis of SAMA’s actions and reasoning leading to these decisions.

In my view, the revised assessments logically flow from SAMA’s reasoning and the actions taken by SAMA in response to the 2017 City Decision , the 2017 R.M. Decision and the 2018 Decision. f. What is the proper result or outcome of this judicial review proceeding?

[ 84 ] I have determined that SAMA’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances of this case. I therefore dismiss Altus’ originating application for judicial review. SAMA is entitled to its taxable costs of the application. J. M.A. BALDWIN