Vancouver Property Owner Penalized for Misleading Tax Argument

The owner of a Vancouver property assessed at over $19 million has successfully reduced the amount used for property tax calculations by nearly $1 million. However, the Property Assessment Appeal Board of British Columbia has determined that Fu D. Ren breached its code of conduct, potentially utilizing artificial intelligence to support his appeal.

The board’s recent decision highlights that Ren’s submission included misleading and inaccurate information. According to John Bridal, the chair of the panel, the submission contained legal citations that do not exist. “The appellant’s submission includes quotations from legal case citations that do not exist,” Bridal stated. This raises concerns about the integrity of Ren’s arguments in his appeal.

Ren’s case emerged when he contested the 2025 assessment of his 18,312-square-foot lot in Vancouver’s Mount Pleasant neighbourhood. He argued that the assessed value of $19,082,000 was excessive, suggesting it should be re-evaluated at an estimated $10 million market value. His reasoning included a claim that the property had suffered multiple fires in 2023 and 2024, leading to a city-enforced demolition order on August 9, 2024, with demolition concluding on November 20, 2024.

In his appeal, Ren sought to justify the reduction by applying a 20 percent discount to a suggested $12 million list price, resulting in a claimed market value of $9.6 million. He cited various decisions from the board and British Columbia courts to support his calculations. However, the board’s assessment revealed that the cited cases were non-existent on legal databases, undermining Ren’s assertions.

Bridal noted, “It is possible that these may be ‘hallucinations’ from using generative artificial intelligence to assist with developing the appellant’s submission.” He emphasized that whether the inaccuracies stemmed from negligence or intentional misrepresentation, both scenarios constituted a breach of the board’s code. The board’s regulations require that reliance on artificial intelligence be disclosed, which was not adhered to in this instance.

The board further examined Ren’s claims related to costs incurred from the demolition of the property. He presented five overdue invoices totaling $2,030,287.14 to the City of Vancouver for various demolition and maintenance expenses. Ren argued that these costs should be deducted from the property’s assessed value, asserting that the market value should reflect the “bare land value” minus the cleanup and demolition expenses.

Bridal challenged this reasoning, stating that Ren had not provided a credible basis for his market value calculations. He remarked, “The supporting case citations and references to appraisal standards are incorrect and possibly falsified.” As a result of these findings, the board ordered a reduction in the property’s assessed value to $18,144,000.

The situation surrounding Ren’s appeal raises critical considerations about the use of artificial intelligence in legal contexts. Wayne MacKay, a professor emeritus at Dalhousie University’s Schulich School of Law, advised that individuals employing AI for legal arguments must ensure accuracy in sourcing and content. “You can use it at your peril in the sense that you’re ultimately responsible for anything it says,” MacKay cautioned.

Bridal’s decision also included a call for further submissions regarding the potential imposition of costs against Ren for the extra investigative work required by the board and the assessor due to the inaccuracies in his submission.

As the implications of this case unfold, it serves as a reminder of the importance of accuracy and integrity in property assessments and legal arguments, particularly in an era where the use of artificial intelligence is becoming more prevalent.