Centre Suite Holdings Edmonton Ltd. v. Edmonton (City), [2003] A.M.G.B.O. No. 180, MGB 144/03 provides guidance relating to when a hotel property will be regarded as unique. At paragraphs 74 to 76, the MGB said the following:
Uniqueness
74 The MGB carefully reviewed the evidence concerning the unique characteristics of the subject property and paid particular attention to the MGB decisions on this issue in MGB 045/02 and MGB 168/02. As the Respondent highlighted in the decision of MGB 045/02, the MGB found that the subject property is not unique to the downtown hotel market and considered the subject similar to other full service hotels in the downtown area despite the subject's association with the mall environment and it being a "suite hotel". The MGB stated that in order to find the subject as unique, substantial information would need to be provided to show the subject had "special attributes catering to a special segment of the market place". In that decision, the MGB found such evidence was lacking from the Appellant and thus decided that the subject was not unique and deserving of treatment outside of the typical market conditions for downtown hotels.
75 In MGB 168/02, the MGB stated that the whole property is unique if all operating departments are unique. If only certain departments are deemed to be sufficiently different to other hotels, then those and only those departments require adjustment in their respective impact upon the market value of the hotel. The Appellant drew attention that in MGB 168/02 the MGB held that where property is sufficiently unique, it is appropriate to use the property's actual expenses with respect to those unique characteristics. In instances where the characteristics are not sufficiently unique, then it is appropriate to use typical expenses for that characteristic, normalized as outlined in the Guide. The MGB takes notice of this reasoning.
76 The MGB in the present matter follows the reasoning in the decisions of both MGB 045/02 and MGB 168/02. Firstly, the MGB follows Board Order MGB 045/02 in finding that the subject is not so unique as to be unique to the downtown Class "A" hotel market. The subject competes on the Class "A" hotel market and does not cater to a special segment of the marketplace. As such, the use of actual values for expenses is not justified. However, as was found MGB 168/02, the MGB finds that there are characteristics of the subject hotel that are unique. Specifically, the subject is unique in the sense that it is connected to the Edmonton CityCentre Shopping Centre. To recognize the uniqueness of the subject, the MGB follows the methodology outlined in the Guide and in MGB 168/02. |
356401 Alberta Ltd. v. Airdrie (City), [2002] A.M.G.B.O. No. 65, MGB 052/02, is interesting from the perspective of what constitutes a group of similar properties. The subject property was a three-storey motel operated under the Best Western flag. At paragraph 39, the Board rejected the assessor’s GIM approach because, among other things, it was based on only one sale. The MGB relied upon two sales of motels “located in similar size municipalities and would be subject to similar market forces . . .” In other words, three properties made a group and going outside the municipality to create the group was not objectionable to the MGB.
| 
