IN DEPTH: Richmond homeowners affected by Cowichan decision see little change to property taxes

VANCOUVER — During a Richmond “town hall” hosted by Richmond mayor Malcolm Brodie last fall, city officials and homeowners affected by the Cowichan Tribes v. Canada 2025 BC Supreme Court decision complained of “plummeting” property values..And yet, a preliminary review of BC Assessment values of Richmond properties affected by the Cowichan decision shows no significant decline in property values, meaning little difference in the property taxes owed to the BC government.This notably unnotable change in assessment values is curious, and gives rise to questions about whether the provincial government might be insulating itself from a decline in property tax revenue despite the “profound uncertainty” at least 150 homeowners are experiencing in the wake of the decision..A comprehensive data check of BC Assessment’s approximated values on more than a dozen residential properties in the affected zone — along rural stretches of No. 6 Road, No. 7 Road, Westminster Highway, Sidaway Road, and River Road — reveals stable or flat assessed values for the 2026 roll year despite numerous reports of homeowners experiencing difficulty in terms of financing, refinancing, mortgage renewals, and/or the general sellability of their properties.Of the more than two dozen properties sampled, assessment values dropped by an average of around 8% — a drop only marginally greater than the provincial average of around 6%.For the average single family home in Richmond, estimated at just over $2 million, this would translate to over $6,000 in property tax owed to the BC government, despite the title uncertainty.The timing is important and notable here. The assessments, released in January and based on market conditions as of July 1 2025, predate the August 7, 2025 BC Supreme Court decision by only a few weeks..However, that will do little to assuage homeowners who are not only impacted by the ruling but also now expected to pay thousands in property taxes despite the uncertainty they face.Adding to the scrutiny and frustration is a recent amendment tucked into Bill 2, or “the Budget Measures Implementation Act,” introduced on February 17 by Finance Minister Brenda Bailey.This omnibus legislation, which received royal assent in late February, implements various budget measures across multiple acts, including tax adjustments, fiscal updates, and clarifications to existing laws.At the heart of the debate is Clause 28, which amends Section 19 of the Assessment Act by adding subsection (6.1). The new provision states: "Subject to subsections (5) and (7), in determining actual value, the assessor is not required to consider any restriction placed on the use of the land and improvements by a person other than (a) the Crown, (b) a local government, as defined in the Schedule to the Local Government Act, or (c) a local trust committee, as defined in the Islands Trust Act.”According to official budget documents, this amendment, effective June 30, 2026, "clarifies the existing practice that BC Assessment is not required to consider the effect of private encumbrances affecting use when determining the assessed value of a property."In essence, it formalizes that assessors can disregard restrictions imposed by non-governmental entities, potentially including uncertainties from Aboriginal title claims like the Cowichan ruling, when valuing properties for taxation purposes..Conservative MLA Gavin Dew has criticized the change as a subtle move to "artificially prop up" assessed values, ensuring steady property tax revenues even if market realities depress prices due to title concerns.“In the real world, property values are affected by risk. They are affected by uncertainty. They are affected when buyers worry that unresolved claims, disputes, or asserted constraints could delay development, increase legal exposure, or reduce the practical use of land,” Dew wrote in an email provided exclusively to The Western Standard.“But this amendment appears to make it easier for BC Assessment to say: unless that restriction comes from government, we are not required to take it into account,” Dew continued.“That is not a small technical point. That goes directly to whether people are being taxed on what their property is truly worth in the market, or on a cleaner fictional value that is more convenient for government revenue.”Dew's email notes that the Act still requires assessors to consider certain registered covenants. “But that only sharpens the question. The minister should answer clearly: when unresolved asserted claims impair market value in practice, is BC Assessment expected to reflect that reality, or pretend it away?”As BC Assessment values are at least partially determined by comparative purchase and sale agreements, if sales in the area soften while assessments stay elevated in 2027, it could have the effect of lowering valuation assessments for private property affected by the Cowichan decision.For the moment, however, initial data indicates the ruling's effects have yet to register in official valuations and, as such, homeowners are expected to pony up their property taxes as per usual.

IN DEPTH: Richmond homeowners affected by Cowichan decision see little change to property taxes

Related Stories