Source: https://aicexchange.ca/a-forensic-appraisers-perspective-government-overpaid-for-land-relying-on-unauthorized-appraisal/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 18:07:51+00:00

Document:
Appraisals are prepared for a host of reasons, but, in every instance, an appraisal is intended to support a decision-making process that involves the appraised property. A party commissioning an appraisal will either rely on the appraisal or attempt to induce another party (e.g., an expropriating or condemning authority, investor, etc.) to rely on the appraisal. Even parties that are frequent users of appraisals often lack the necessary skills to understand when and under what conditions they can or should rely on an appraisal report. A decision made on the basis of an appraisal report, to which there is no lawful entitlement, can lead to financial losses and unintended consequences, as occurred when the Saskatchewan government negotiated a deal to purchase additional land for the Global Transportation Hub (GTH) through the Global Transportation Hub Authority (GTH Authority). A sequence of events (and questionable conduct), commencing in November 2011, culminated in the December 2013 decision of the GTH Authority to acquire 204 acres at a grossly inflated price, while relying on an unauthorized appraisal report “using a cash flow-subdivision development analysis” to value raw land in agricultural use.
My analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the CUSPAP  [or USPAP].
According to the Appraisal Institute of Canada, in describing What Real Estate Appraisers Do, the public can expect its members to provide “unbiased and dependable valuations” that “attest to the real value of property,” and rely on them to make “informed decisions about real estate.” [underscoring added] A flawed or unreliable appraisal undermines public confidence in the credibility of the appraisal profession, and a governmental agency exposed to such a report should reject the appraisal outright. If the appraisal has been completed by someone with an appraisal designation, a complaint should be lodged with the organization to which the appraiser belongs.
The reliance must have been detrimental to the representee in the sense that damage resulted.
All five of these elements must be proved by the claimant. It is not uncommon for reasonable appraisers to disagree on value. Appraisers can also commit an error in judgement, which does not rise to the level of negligence. If there is no reasonable or logical basis for an opinion of value in the context of the intended use, or an appraisal report is fraught with errors of commission or omission related to completeness, accuracy, adequacy and relevance, as supported by a comprehensive review of the appraisal report, a claimant will likely prevail on a claim of negligence. A review appraiser acting as an expert witness has an overriding duty to assist the court, without advocating for the client’s position. A document such as CUSPAP is likely to bear on a court’s legal analysis.
The intended use of the appraisal was to assist a lender in deciding whether the property offered sufficient collateral for a mortgage loan. The appraiser knew the land in question was in a floodplain, and the report made no mention of that fact. Highest and best use is a fundamental requirement of every appraisal, of which land use controls are a key consideration, and on which rests every estimate of market value. The land consists of 11 lots that cannot be developed for the stated highest and best as “being development to commercial-type use,” due to the onerous building restrictions contained in the floodplain by-law.
(NE-18-17-20-W2) pertains to a 41.15-acre parcel acquired January 18, 2013 for $1,234,500, equivalent to $30,000 per acre. Reportedly, the property had been available for sale since March 2009, at an asking price of $38,882 per acre.
That access would be allowed from Dewdney Avenue, in order to develop the land for an industrial subdivision.
That Saskatchewan Highways would only require a minimal amount of the subject land for the intersection at Dewdney Avenue and the proposed West Regina Bypass. If too much land is taken, a subdivision development might be unfeasible.
That City of Regina water and sewer connections could be obtained at feasible costs.
That the underground pipelines on the subject land do not make an industrial subdivision unfeasible.
Reportedly, underground petroleum pipelines account for 11.78 acres of the 116.86-acre parcel and 1.78 acres of the 87.40-acre parcel. The 13.56 acres in which the pipelines are embedded are not developable and are a constraint to any future urban development of the 204 acres. At best, only 190.70 acres are developable. Both parcels are zoned UH (Urban Holding), and, according to the appraisal, “an industrial subdivision” is the highest and best use of the lands “based on the assumptions” previously listed. Reportedly, it is not feasible to extend sewer and water to the 116.86-acre parcel from the City of Regina, and access to sewer and water systems of the GTH Authority, the owner of the abutting property, would have to be negotiated.
These 204 acres were under the threat of expropriation, but the appraisal report makes no reference to the Saskatchewan Expropriation Procedure Act: legislation that protects the expropriating authority from paying for any increase in the value of the land occasioned by the public works (i.e., the ‘scheme’), and unrelated to the general movement of prices in the relevant real estate market. It can be a difficult task for an appraiser to discern price increases experienced by land sales that have occurred as a consequence of an announced major public project or the imminence of a public project.
49(1) An expropriating authority shall make due compensation to the owner of land expropriated by the expropriating authority in the exercise of its statutory powers beyond any special advantage that the owner may derive from any public improvement for which the land was expropriated.
(b) any increase or decrease in the value of the land expropriated resulting from the anticipation of expropriation by the expropriating authority or from any knowledge or expectation, prior to the expropriation, of the purpose for which the land was expropriated.
The Global Transportation Hub (GTH) includes Canadian Pacific Railway’s (CPR) new expanded intermodal facility, Loblaw Companies’ new western Canadian distribution centre, and the associated transportation infrastructure. The transportation infrastructure will be developed in several stages.
Stage 1 involves the upgrading of existing Pinkie Road and Dewdney Avenue, including the construction of 2 new lanes on the selected Pinkie Road alignment for a short distance. Stage 2 involves the construction of new Pinkie Road between Highway 1 and Highway 11 (4-lane from Highway 1 to Dewdney Avenue and 2-lane from Dewdney Avenue to Highway 11).
The road infrastructure associated with new intermodal facility is expected to reduce the congestion on the CPR mainline by providing a more efficient system to transport goods in and out of Regina.
Highways and Infrastructure Minister Wayne Elhard today made public the plans to upgrade and expand Pinkie Road and Dewdney Avenue to make way for continued development of the Global Transportation Hub (GTH).
An owner whose land is under the threat of expropriation should seek legal advice from an expropriation lawyer and retain an appraiser that understands the relevant expropriation statute, and that possesses the skill and expertise required to complete the assignment. Very few appraisers specialize in expropriation work, as most appraisers lack the specialized knowledge, skills and experience necessary to produce a credible appraisal. An expropriation appraiser often works under the direction of legal counsel. An appraisal prepared on behalf of the expropriating authority must also meet the same expected standards of competency, and the appraisal report should be reviewed by an experienced review appraiser on behalf of the property owner.
The buyer in town was the government. No land developer had any interest in this land. They knew there was potential for an interchange. They knew they probably could not develop. Any proposed subdivision against a provincial highway—that is probably the worst land to speculate on.
There is no appraisal that gives that number [$103,000 per acre]. There is no indicator even in the ballpark of that number.
The appraisal prepared on behalf of MHI clearly discloses that the value estimates of $30,000 per acre and $35,000 per acre are “assumptive” values rather than “as is” values. Presumably, without these assumptions, the value of the 204 acres, as of the effective date of appraisal (October 23, 2013), would have been less than $30,000 per acre and $35,000 per acre. It is also clear that any transactions occurring after MHI’s March 9, 2009 public announcement of its highway plans to facilitate the GTH project caused the price of land to escalate.
Between 2007-08 and 2009-10, MHI either acquired or expropriated 1,180 acres for the Hub (excludes land for CP Rail and Loblaw) at a cost of $24.6 million (i.e., average cost of $20,850 per acre), including settlement costs relating to litigation with affected landowners.
The GTH Act states that, “if the purchase price or sale price of real property in one transaction entered into by the authority exceeds the amount fixed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council [$5 million],” the authority must obtain the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
These same 204 acres had been previously acquired by Taupauff, when, in early 2012, he noticed an 87-acre parcel of land up for sale (listed in August 2011) next to the GTH, the industrial park owned by the provincial government. Taupauff paid the full asking price of $45,000 per acre. Through his realtors, Taupauff then approached the owner of the adjoining 117 acres, struck a deal at $55,000 per acre, and, in March 2012, had both properties under contract. Negotiations for the 117 acres commenced in February 2012 starting at $15,000 an acre, then $25,000, $30,000, $45,000, and finally concluding at $55,000 per acre.
Combined, Taupauff paid an average price of $50,735 per acre for the 204 acres. How the two transactions were structured is unknown, but it is possible that a significant portion of the purchase price in each transaction was in the form of vendor-take-back mortgage financing on favourable terms and conditions, which is typical of speculative raw land purchases. Conventional mortgage financing on raw land on good terms and conditions is difficult to obtain, and the loan-to-value ratio usually does not exceed 50%. Taupauff controlled both properties pursuant to the March 2012 conditional agreements, which included extended due diligence periods and were not scheduled to close until February 26, 2013, allowing the potential purchaser time to find a buyer willing to pay a higher price for the lands. Both the pending transactions and property ‘flips’ closed on the same day, and Taupauff’s name never appeared on title.
Taupauff said “he thought he might eventually be able to turn the properties into an industrial subdivision,” reportedly uninformed by his realtor that “the government was thinking of building a highway through his land.” These lands are not serviced; they are not zoned to permit any urban development; and they form part of the planned West Region Bypass, adjacent to a railway corridor. A sketch of the proposed interchange, which appears to have been created in November 2011, had been circulated by MHI to potentially affected property owners. In June 2013, three months after the two vendors signed agreements to sell their lands to Taupauff , they were notified by MHI “warning that the government might need more of their land for the interchange.” That information was subsequently conveyed to Taupauff’s attorney, and Taupauff “still could kill the deal and gotten back his deposit,” but, instead, both transactions moved forward and closed on February 26, 2013. Buying land that is under the threat of expropriation is a highly unusual practice, especially if the prospective purchaser is a developer. As for a transaction motivated by speculation, buying land under the threat of expropriation only makes sense at a price below market value.
(SW-24-17-21-W2) pertains to a 45-acre parcel acquired on April 9, 2010, from Granitewest Developments Ltd., for $1,594,500, equivalent to $10,000 per acre [subsequently offered $10,843.73 per acre]. The matter of final compensation is in litigation.
(NW-19-17-20-W2) pertains to a 156-acre parcel acquired on April 9, 2010, for $1,875,400, equivalent to $12,022 per acre.
On December 3, 2013, a recommendation from the Ministry of the Economy (Chair of the GTH) went to the GTH board recommending that the Government of Saskatchewan “acquire the east parcels [for $105,000 per acre] to support the development of the interchange to access the Global Transportation Hub with the surplus lands being sold to the GTH for further development.” A follow-up recommendation to the GTH board on December 19, 2013 issued a revised recommendation stating that “Global Transportation Hub would acquire the lands at a slightly reduced price of $103,000 per acre and support development of the interchange.” A series of memos prepared by GTH offers some insight into the acquisition of the 204 acres.
A copy of…[the February 12, 2013] appraisal [prepared on behalf of Royalty Development Ltd. (Pres: Anthony Marquart)] for the NW quarter of the East Parcels [116.86 acres], which assigned a land value of about $129,000 per acre,…used a different valuation approach [cash flow-subdivision development analysis] than the GTH requested [Direct Comparison Approach] [for its own appraisals].
As a tool in land valuation, the subdivision development method is primarily used to provide a bulk sale value for a group of subdivision lots, either proposed or existing. The method can also be used to estimate the value of vacant land or finished lots in a proposed subdivision development scenario. The subdivision development method relies on discounted cash flow analysis and requires that the property have a highest and best use for development consistent with the proposed development plan in order to reflect the current value of the vacant land.
18.30.2. DCF analysis in an additional tool available to the Member and is best applied when developing value opinions in the context of one or more of the other approaches to value.
Also, the appraisal relates only to one of the two properties, the 116.86-acre parcel, which relatively speaking is more valuable per acre than the other (87.40-acre parcel) because of proximity to services.
A total of 204.26 acres (82.7 hectares) will be assembled. It is estimated that MHI will require about 80 acres for the West Regina Bypass.
The purchase price in the Offer to Purchase was based on two appraisals and an actual land transaction that closed in February 2013.
The first appraisal was completed in October 2013 using a direct comparison approach arriving at a market value of about $65,000 per acre for the North parcel [116.86 acres] and $51,000 for the Southern parcel [87.40 acres]. A second appraisal was completed in February 2013 using a cash flow-subdivision development analysis arriving at a market value of about $129,556 per acre for the North parcel [116.86 acres]. The purchase price for the land transaction in February 2013 was about $84,000 per acre.
Based on the above information, the GTHA was approved to send a formal Offer to Purchase on December 23, 2013. The Offer to Purchase was accepted by the seller on December 24, 2013 with a March 3, 2014 closing date.
The price the accepted offer was for $103,000 per acre (about $254,410 per hectare) for a total cost of about $21 million.
Must be analyzed and reported if any agreement for sale, option, lease… or listing of the subject property occurred within one year prior to the date of valuation, including any pending/current Contract of Purchase and Sale… in such information is available to the appraiser in the normal course of business.
Must be analyzed and reported if any sale of the subject property occurred within three years prior to the effective date of the appraisal, if such information is available as at the date of valuation to the appraiser in the normal course of business.
There are only two possibilities as to these mandatory disclosures under CUSPAP. Either the February 12, 2013 appraisal report does not include the disclosures, which means that the report has not been prepared in compliance with CUSPAP, or that the disclosures are included in the appraisal report, and were ignored by the GTH Authority, as well as the Ministry of the Economy. Either way, property-specific information of this nature is critical as to its influence on the market value of the 116.86-acre parcel.
I received this email and thought I would share it. While I understand that there will be push back in terms of appraisal methodologies [cash flow-subdivision development analysis], it does mean that we have some information that makes a case for our position.
I intend to call Anthony [Marquart] again tomorrow and see where we go from here.
To estimate the current market value of the fee simple estates within the subject properties in order to assist Vertex [agent for GTH Authority] in negotiations with the owner(s) of the subject properties to enable buy/sell agreement(s) with the owners.
101225232 Saskatchewan Ltd. purchased the land [116.86 acres] for $82,040/acre on February 26, 2013 title #143310912 from Taupauff who purchased for $55,000 per acre in approx. March 2012 from Sisters of our Lady of the Missions Ltd. Taupauff did not take title. They did a land flip.
101225232 Saskatchewan Ltd. purchased the land for $71,681/acre [87.40 acres] on February 26, 2013 title #143310473 from Taupauff who purchased in approx. March 2012 for $45,000 per acre from McNally Enterprises Ltd. Taupauff did not take title. They did a land flip.
It is obvious from the disclosures in the September 23, 2013 appraisal report that the GTH Authority was acutely aware that these two properties had been flipped in a speculative transaction, and that the results of the appraisal did not warrant paying a price anywhere near $103,000 per acre for the 204 acres. About the same time, in a negotiated transaction of a 24.48-acre parcel (immediately west of Global Transportation Hub) at $18,126 per acre, the Province of Saskatchewan took possession in October 2013, and in December 2013 conveyed the parcel to Canadian Pacific Railway Company to allow for expansion of Canadian Pacific’s operations at the Global Transportation Hub.
As well, on the market in 2013 was a 298-acre parcel available at an asking price of $29,000 per acre (reduced from $45,000 per acre). The parcel is immediately adjacent to the City of Regina, but, at that time, was not located within a defined plan area for future development. Reportedly, the property had been under contract twice at $25,000 per acre, but a jurisdictional dispute between RM of Sherwood and the City of Regina, which wanted to annex the lands, over the source of the needed water supply for a proposed industrial plan of subdivision derailed both conditional transactions. Eventually, the property sold in June 2014 for $15,000 per acre. Although zoned AGI – Agriculture, the lands are shown as ‘Industrial’ in the new proposed zoning by-law.
Undermined MHI’s intention to acquire the lands for highway purposes, a ministry with the statutory power to acquire the lands at market value in compliance with the Expropriation Procedure Act.
A governmental agency that lacks the expertise to review an appraisal report, whether commissioned directly or received indirectly through a third party, should retain a competent review appraiser. A third-party appraisal report should never be accepted or acted upon unless the governmental agency (e.g., condemning/expropriating authority) is expressly identified as an intended user, the intended use is consistent with the agency’s objective (e.g., purchase, expropriate, etc.), and allows for public disclosure (e.g., freedom of information request). In the event of sustained financial losses stemming from reliance on an appraisal report as an unintended user, it is unlikely that a negligence claim against the appraiser would be successful.
 Saskatchewan Legislative Assembly, GTH East Land Transactions, http://docs.legassembly.sk.ca/legdocs/Legislative%20Committees/PAC/Tableddocs/PAC%2024-28%20GTH%20-%20Responses%20to%20questions%20(12).pdf (26 October 2018).
 CUSPAP are the Canadian Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, as adopted by the Appraisal Institute of Canada (AIC). The AIC does not obligate its members with a duty to report contraventions of CUSPAP.
 An “extraordinary assumption” or “hypothetical condition” must be clear and conspicuous in the appraisal report, and accompanied by a statement their use might have affected the assignment results (i.e., the value estimate).
 An appraisal must include a sourced definition of market value, which is always expressed in cash or in terms equivalent to cash. Comparable sales relied on to estimate market value must be reduced to a cash-equivalent price if a transaction includes atypical financing, e.g., VTB mortgage on favourable terms and conditions.
 A copy of the 2018 edition of CUSPAP can be downloaded from https://www.aicanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/CUSPAP-2018-effective-01-aug-18-2.pdf.
 Never invest in a syndicated mortgage or property without access to a supporting appraisal report on which there is entitlement to reliance (i.e., foreseen intended user based on intended use of appraisal), and before the report has been reviewed, personally or by a competent appraiser.
 A claim of negligence must be filed within the prescribed jurisdictional limitation period, which generally starts from the day the cause of action is discovered.
 Queen v. Cognos Inc., 1993 CanLII 146 (SCC),  1 S.C.R. 87, at p. 110.
 Leahy Family Trust v. Clive, 2012 S.K.Q.B. 344, (CanLII), at para. 30.
 In Abt Estate (Re) v. Cold Lake Industrial Park GP Ltd., 2018 A.B.Q.B. 313, (CanLII), the court found that “the Appraisal Report and Update Appraisal…was a gross over valuation” (para. 263) and “that the Appraisal Report [$10,115,000 September 16, 2008] and Update Appraisal [$8,595,000 March 30, 2009]…so flawed that it does not meet the standard of a reasonably competent appraiser. It was nothing more than a valuation prepared for a long-term client and a total sham” (para. 265, emphasis added). The 144-acre parcel, purchased by Integra on May 27, 2008 for $600,000, was flipped by way of an offer accepted June 18, 2008 to CLEI for $1,365,037.72, with a VTB mortgage of $1,050,000 at 0% with no payment due until April 2009.
 Laidar Holdings Ltd. v. Lindt & Sprungli (Canada) Inc., 2018 B.C.S.C. 66 (CanLII), at para. 374. In 514788 Alberta Ltd. v. Bourgeois & Company Ltd., 2017 A.B.Q.B. 363 (CanLII), the court looked to guidance from both CUSPAP and the American USPAP (Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice) in its analysis of negligence in the preparation of an appraisal involving potential subdivision development.
 See Royal Bank of Canada v. Westech Appraisal Services Ltd., 2018 B.C.S.C. 473 (CanLII). In Ascent One Properties Ltd. v. Liao, 2017 B.C.S.C. 1017 (CanLII), an appraiser reviewing a report was harshly criticized by the court, as his “testimony was replete with editorialized pontification” and “his approach to his role as an expert witness was not only inappropriate and unhelpful, it was misguided. He confused the request that he provide a critique with the notion that he was charged with the responsibility of making findings of fact, determining subjective intent, and delivering conclusions regarding whether…[the appraiser] met the standard of care expected of him” (emphasis added). In Abt Estate (Re) Cold Lake Industrial Park GP Ltd., 2018 A.B.Q.B. 313 (CanLII), the court questioned a review appraiser’s “impartiality, and his commitment to the duty an expert has to the Court” (para. 118, emphasis added).
 Ryan Mortgage Income Fund Inc. v. Alpine Credits Limited, 2016 B.C.S.C. 1582 (CanLII). Ryan Mortgage purchased a mortgage from Alpine Credits, a mortgage broker. The appraisal was addressed to the borrowers, with Alpine Credits identified as an intended user in a Letter of Transmittal. A Letter of Transmittal was never issued by the appraiser to Ryan Mortgage, the purchaser of the loan.
 A ‘draft’ Appraisal Report was submitted on June 13, 2012, which appears to address only the 116.86-acre parcel.
 Peter M. Lawrek, Appraisal Report, https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2698563-C14-0044-Signed-Redacted-Jan8-16.html (17 October 2018).
 Lands ‘UH’ (Urban Holding Zone) “is designed to protect lands required for future urban development from premature subdivision and development.” (Zoning By-law No. 9250, City of Regina).
 McNally Enterprises Ltd. v. Government of Saskatchewan, 2018 S.K.Q.B. 122 (CanLII), https://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skqb/doc/2018/2018skqb122/2018skqb122.pdf.
 According to a November 18, 2016 news article, at the time of the 2010 sale of 19.73 acres at $9,000 per acre, that vendor was reportedly informed by MHI that “the rest of their land would be expropriated at a later date.” Regina Leader Post, Saskatchewan government ‘ripped off’ nuns in land deal, https://leaderpost.com/opinion/letters/saskatchewan-government-ripped-off-nuns-in-land-deal, updated from Sept 5, 2017 (22 October 2018).
 Geoff Leo, Email shows Bill Boyd and premier’s office were ‘concocting a scheme’ to pay too much for GTH land, NDP says, https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/email-shows-bill-boyd-and-premier-s-office-were-concocting-a-scheme-to-pay-too-much-for-gth-land-ndp-says-1.4274842 (21 October 2018).
 On June 13, 2012, a ‘draft’ of the Appraisal Report was emailed to MHI, Government Services and GTA Authority.
 Government of Saskatchewan, The Global Transportation Hub Authority Act, http://www.qp.gov.sk.ca/documents/English/Statutes/Statutes/G5-01.pdf (18 October 2018).
 Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, Hansard Verbatim Report, http://docs.legassembly.sk.ca/legdocs/Legislative%20Committees/PAC/Debates/170112Debates-PAC.pdf (18 October 2018).
 At March 31, 2016, MHI owned about 540 acres it acquired for the GTH footprint.
 Geoff Leo, The GTH land deal you’ve never heard of — and Bill Boyd won’t talk about, https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/gth-land-deal-bill-boyd-never-heard-of-1.3800855 (18 October 2018).
 Geoff Leo, Businessmen made millions on Regina land that wound up in taxpayers’ hands, https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/businessmen-millions-regina-land-bill-boyd-1.3420479 (18 October 2018).
 In 2018, one of the vendors brought an action against the Government of Saskatchewan for misrepresentation of the value of the land, and grossly underpaying. The court ruled against the vendor on the grounds that the statute limitation period had expired before the claim was issued in March 2016 (McNally Enterprises Ltd. v. Government of Saskatchewan, 2018 S.K.Q.B. 122 [CanLII], https://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skqb/doc/2018/2018skqb122/2018skqb122.pdf [19 October 2018]). The March 22, 2016 Statement of Claim indicates that MHI paid the property owner $9,000 per acre for 44.70 acres (Parcel 109553777) in 2010, and $11,000 per acre for 28.06 acres (Parcel 165025447) in 2011, and that both Parcels were acquired under the threat of expropriation. Based on a February 2010 appraisal prepared on behalf of the property owner indicating a value of $38,000 per acre for both Parcels, the property owner claimed damages of $2,053,920. See Statement of Claim, https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/saskndp/pages/1287/attachments/original/1458831538/Statement_of_Claim_issued_16.03.22-2.pdf?1458831538 (23 October 2018).
 These lands were initially acquired in March 2008 for $4,000 per acre, prior to being conveyed in January 2009. Granitewest Developments Ltd. v. Government of Saskatchewan, 2015 S.K.Q.B. 320 (CanLII), https://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skqb/doc/2015/2015skqb320/2015skqb320.pdf (19 October 2018). A February 10, 2016 news article quotes from a 2012 statement of claim: “Granitewest said an appraisal prepared for it determined the land to be worth $38,000 per acre. Two appraisals prepared for the province [MHI] said the land was worth $10,000 [per acre] and $8,750 [per acre], and another appraiser said the first two were both in order.” Granitewest claims the appraisers the government used specifically excluded three land sales worth $37,500 per acre, $32,598 per acre, and $42,906 per acre. Granitewest was ultimately offered $10,843.73 per acre, which in the lawsuit is called “unreasonably low.” See Darcy Senft, Global Transportation Hub land prices scrutinized in 2012 lawsuit, https://www.cjme.com/2016/02/10/global-transportation-hub-land-prices-scrutinized-in-2012-lawsuit-2/ (23 October 2018).
 Saskatchewan Legislative Assembly, PAC 24-28 GTH – Responses to questions (14), http://docs.legassembly.sk.ca/legdocs/Legislative%20Committees/PAC/Tableddocs/PAC%2024-28%20GTH%20-%20Responses%20to%20questions%20(14).pdf (20 October 2018).
 According to the website, Royalty Developments was established in 2003, and have “developed, or are in the process of developing…commercial, residential and mixed use projects in Western Canada.” Royalty Developments, https://www.royaltydevelopments.com/who-we-are (10 October 2018).
 Global Transportation Hub Authority (Re), 2016 CanLII 77431 (SK IPC), https://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skipc/doc/2016/2016canlii77431/2016canlii77431.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQADR1RIAAAAAAE&resultIndex=7 (17 October 2018).
Transportation Hub Authority and Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure, https://auditor.sk.ca/pub/publications/special/Special%20Report_Land%20Acquisition%20Processes%20Final.pdf (19 October 2018), p. 30.
 The GTH Authority’s appraisal appears to have been commissioned earlier, as one of the photos in the report is dated May 16, 2013 and the printout of the Certificate of Title is dated August 28, 2013.
 Canadian Resource Valuation Group, Appraisal Report, https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2698565-Canadian-Valuation-Group-Appraisal-Jan8-16.html (21 October 2018).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.