Additional School Tax (AST) APPEALS UPDATE

Since our last communication, we have discussed issues with the leading appellant agents and legal counsel experienced with AST.

The original concept advanced at the Musqueam hearing – that the definition of “in use”  is different for the AST than in general assessment was not accepted by the B.C. Supreme Court, and while the B.C. Court of Appeal gave leave to appeal from that decision, the appeal was discontinued before further steps were taken (the BC Government granted the Musqueam First Nation exemption). To overturn that Supreme Court decision would likely require a new appellant going to the B.C. Court of Appeal seeking a different result.

Avenues of appeal relate to

  1. Changing when the subject is ‘in use as a residential property”.
  2. Delays at City Hall
  3. Definition of a “dwelling property”

In Use as Residential Property

The current guideline that use governs when use changes is “when construction has started”. There is possible argument that this definition is too limiting. While the DP process is ongoing, the project is in use. This is a different issue than the Musqueam case.

Definition of “dwelling property” in the School Act

Another unexplored issue in relation to AST is how Class 1 classification under s. 1(1)(a) fits with the “dwelling property” definition in the School Act. There might be a “use” so as to fall outside the subsection (a) definition of “dwelling property”, but someone who ultimately argues this issue will need to ensure they don’t inadvertently step into other aspects of the “dwelling property” definition.

Delays at City Hall

Potentially if the process was slowed down by the City, then it is not the developers' fault that development was not continuous or completed.

Conclusion

A test case has been identified by the Appeal Board. A report needs to be prepared by February 28th, 2025. Altus and ourselves will be working on this case together.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Austin, BSc. AACI, CArb.