Supreme Court of Canada
Nickel Rim Mines Ltd. v. Attorney General (Ontario), [1967]
S.C.R. 270
Date: 1967-02-10
Nickel Rim Mines Limited (Plaintiff) Appellant;
and
The Attorney
General for Ontario (Defendent) Respondent.
1967: February 10.
Present: Cartwright, Fauteux, Martland,
Judson, Ritchie, Hall and Spence JJ..
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR
ONTARIO.
Constitutional law—Mining tax—Provincial tax
on net profits of sold and unsold ore—Whether direct taxation—Mining Tax Act,
R.S.O. 1950, c. 237, s. 4.
The plaintiff company commenced this action
for a declaration that a tax imposed on it under the authority of the Mining
Tax Act, R.S.O. 1950, c. 237, was ultra vires in that it was an
indirect tax. Section 4 of the Act imposes a tax on the net profits of the
sales of ore and also upon estimated net profits on unsold ore based upon
actual market value. The trial judge ruled that the statute was intra vires in
so far as it imposed a tax on the output sold during the mine’s calendar year;
that this aspect of the tax was severable; and that in so far as the statute
imposed a tax on output not sold during the calendar year but treated or in the
course of treatment, the statute was ultra vires. The Court of Appeal
held that the tax imposed by the Mining Tax Act was intra vires in
toto as being a direct tax. The plaintiff company appealed to this Court
where the constitutional question raised was
[Page 271]
stated as follows: “Whether section 4 and
related sections of the Mining Tax Act, being chapter 237 of the Revised
Statutes of Ontario 1950 as amended by...is ultra vires the Legislature
of the province of Ontario in
so far as the tax purported to be imposed by that section and the related
sections is an indirect tax.”
APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Appeal
for Ontario, allowing an appeal
from a judgment of Wells J. Appeal dismissed.
R.F. Reid, Q.C., and J.W. Morden, for the
plaintiff, appellant.
F.W. Callaghan, Q.C., and A.E. Charlton,
for the defendant, respondent.
Gérald LeDain, Q.C., for the intervenant,
the Attorney General for Quebec.
At the conclusion of the argument of counsel for
the appellant, the following judgment was delivered:
CARTWRIGHT J. (orally for the Court):—Mr.
Callaghan and Mr. LeDain, we need not call upon you. We are all of opinion that
the appeal fails. We are in substantial agreement with the reasons of the Court
of Appeal delivered by the Chief Justice of Ontario. The appeal is therefore
dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Solicitors for the plaintiff, appellant:
Day, Wilson, Campbell &
Martin, Toronto.
Solicitor for the defendant, respondent:
F.W. Callaghan, Toronto.
Email this Content