“It is erroneous to interpret the reasons as establishing a precedent for the degree of proof required to establish a decrease in property values in these circumstances,” wrote Justice Healey in her decision. “...this court was invited to, and did, engage in a legal fiction in order to cast the plaintiffs' case in its most favorable light. That legal fiction involved accepting, without requiring the plaintiffs to prove, that they were currently experiencing a decrease in their property values as a result of the announcement of the wind project.