Municipal Property Tax Appeals In Saskatchewan: Lessons From Pratchler (2026 SKMB 17)

Introduction

When can taxpayers appeal their property tax assessment? In the recent Saskatchewan Municipal Board (“SMB”) decision of Dennis Pratchler and Michele Cruise-Pratchler v Last Mountain Valley (Rural Municipality), 2026 SKMB 17 (“Pratchler”), the SMB dealt with a situation where a ratepayer subsequently appealed their 2025 RM property tax classification after having already appealed the 2023 assessment for the same property (the “2023 Appeal”). The SMB ultimately dismissed the appeal, offering important lessons for future assessment disputes.

Grounds of Appeal Raised by the Taxpayers

The appellants advanced three main arguments:

1. Multi‑Use Property Classification

They argued the building should be classified as a multi‑use property under section 43 of The Municipalities Regulations (the “Regulations”), because:

• 12.5% of the building was used as office space; and
• 87.5% was used for storage.

2. Unoccupied Residential Building Exemption

They claimed the residential portion of the building was unoccupied and therefore exempt from taxation under section 293(2)(a) of The Municipalities Act (the “Act”).

3. Alleged Contract with the Municipality

They alleged that a binding agreement was formed during the 2023 appeal, requiring the RM to classify the yard site and building as residential rather than commercial.

Law

A) Multi-Use Property Classification – S. 43(1) of the Regulations

When can a property be classified as a multi-use property?

Section 43(1) of the Regulations states that a municipality “may” classify separate portions of a property differently if:

1. the secondary use of the property is clearly distinct from the predominant use of the property; and
2. the distinct use is not integrated with the predominant use.

The Appellants argued that the municipality had an obligation to apply section 43 of the Regulations to their property. In Blucher (Rural Municipality No. 343) (Saskatchewan Assessment Management Agency) v Doerksen (“Blucher”),¹ the SMB held that a municipality may have an obligation to apply s. 43 in certain circumstances; however, a proper interpretation of the Regulations shows that the use of s. 43 is discretionary, not mandatory.

Section 2-30(1)(c) of The Legislation Act is clear when legislation uses the term “may”, it shall be interpreted as permissive and empowering.

Section 43 of the Regulations states that a municipality “may” classify different portions of a property differently. The term “may” is discretionary and, therefore, section 43 of the Regulations provides municipalities with a discretionary right, and not an obligation.

The Appellants sought to have portions of their building classified separately. Section 43 is not intended to be used to divide a building. Instead, section 43 is intended to be used to divide property where, for example, a 160-acre quarter section of farmland has a house on it. In that case, a 3-acre portion surrounding the house would typically be classified one way, while the other 157 acres is classified another. It would be impractical if assessors were required to go through every building to assess the use and purpose of each room.

Before section 43 of the Regulations can be applied, the property’s secondary uses must also be distinct from the predominant use. In Lajord (Rural Municipality) v Kambeitz Agri Inc. (“Lajord”),² the SMB held that the “predominant use” of an improvement is the main use of that improvement.³ In Lajord, the SMB found that the taxpayer’s primary use of the property was a grain terminal for receiving, processing and shipping grain, oilseeds, and special forages. In looking at the requirement under s. 43 that the different use be “clearly distinct from the property’s predominant use and not integrated or directly related to the property’s predominant use”, the SMB held that using the bins for personal farm storage was not distinct from the main use of the property as an elevator.⁴

The analysis from Lajord makes it clear that not only must the property have multiple uses, but also the secondary use must be (1) clearly distinct, and (2) not integrated with the predominant use. In Pratchler, the use of the building for both an office and storage could not be found to be clearly distinct and not integrated with each other.

B) Unoccupied Building Tax Exemption – s. 293(2)(a) of the Act

What does “unoccupied” mean under Saskatchewan municipal tax law?

In Pratchler, the Appellants also argued that the building was exempt from tax by way of section 293(2)(a) of the Act, being that it was an unoccupied building that was residential in nature and situated on land.

In Qu’Appelle Developments Ltd. v Regina (City) (“Qu’Appelle”)⁵, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal explained what the term “occupied” means. The taxpayer in Qu’Appelle owned land upon which it operated a parking lot. The taxpayer took the position that it could not be assessed to pay tax with respect to the property because it did not “occupy” the lands. The Court held that “the word ‘occupy’ … is not confined to physical occupation, but extends also to exercise of power over, as well as control and/or use of the property.”⁶ Further, the Court held that because the appellants owned, controlled, and used the properties for the purpose of their businesses, it was reasonable to conclude that they occupied the properties. ⁷

According to Canadian Revival Centre Corp v Prince Albert (City)⁸, not every part of a property needs to be occupied for that property to be considered occupied.⁹

For a property to be tax exempt under s. 293(2)(a) of the Act, the property must also be residential in nature and situated on land. Section 293(1)(b) of the Act defines “land” as essentially being native prairie, cultivated farmland, pasture land, or land used for any other agricultural purpose.

In Pratchler, the building was not residential in nature, as it was classified as commercial. It was also not situated on “land” within the meaning of s. 293(1)(b) of the Act.

C) Tax Classification Agreements Must Be Written and Timely – s. 228 of the Act

Uniquely, in Pratchler, the Appellant argued that a contract had been formed between the Appellant and the municipality during the 2023 Appeal.

The basic requirements of a valid contract include offer, acceptance, consideration, agreement as to the essential terms, and an intention to create legal relations. Section 228 of the Act sets out further requirements for a contract to be formed between a municipality and a ratepayer in the context of a tax appeal. Section 228 permits the ratepayer and the municipality to come to an agreement with respect to the valuation, classification, or exempt status of a property; however, this agreement must be completed before the appeal is heard by the Board and must be in writing.

In the context of Pratchler, the alleged agreement did not occur before the 2023 Appeal, and it was not in writing.

Conclusion

Municipal property tax appeals in Saskatchewan are highly technical and fact‑specific. Pratchler illustrates how difficult it can be to overturn an assessment without clear evidence that the assessor materially misunderstood the facts or misapplied the law.

Because the stakes can be significant – particularly for commercial and agricultural properties – it is best to consult with a lawyer to determine if there is a basis for an appeal, and to assist in advancing that appeal or defending the original assessment.