THURLOW,
J.:—This
is
an
application
for
an
order
directing
the
Royal
Bank
of
Canada
to
pay
to
the
Sheriff
of
the
Judicial
District
of
Montreal
the
sum
of
$33,508.79
standing
to
the
credit
of
a
savings
account
in
a
branch
of
the
bank
in
Montreal
in
the
name
of
Duke
Osolin
de
Topor
seized
under
a
Writ
of
Extent
issued
to
recover
succession
duties
and
interest
assessed
under
the
Dominion
Succession
Duty
Act,
R.S.C.
1952,
ce.
89,
following
the
death
of
the
said
Duke
Osolin
de
Topor
and
for
a
further
order
that
the
said
Sheriff
pay
over
the
said
amount
in
satisfaction
of
the
claim
of
the
Crown
against
the
estate
of
the
said
deceased
for
such
succession
duties,
interest
and
costs
From
the
material
on
file
it
appears
that
the
deceased
was
a
resident
of
Costa
Rica,
that
he
died
on
March
23,
1955,
and
that
a
notice
of
assessment
dated
October
19,
1965
claiming
$26,324.25
for
succession
duty
and
$13,349.64
for
interest
was
addressed
to
“Administrators,
Est.
of
Duke
of
Osolin
de
To-po—r,
e/o-
Messrs.
Godin,
Godin,
Mehnert
&
Prud’homme,
1155
Dorchester
Blvd.,
West,
Room
808,
Montreal,
P.Q.’’.
On
October
7,
1966
a
document
purporting
to
be
a
certificate
under
Section
57*
of
the
Dominion
Succession
Duty
Actt
was
filed
in
this
Court
alleging
that
$26,324.25
for
tax
and
$14,449.35
for
interest
were
due,
owing
and
unpaid
by
Godin,
Godin,
Meh-
nert
&
Prud’homme,
Administrators
of
the
Estate
of
Duke
Osolin
de
Topor
and
on
the
same
day
a
Writ
of
Extent
issued
alleging
the
indebtedness
of
Godin,
Godin,
Mehnert
&
Prud’homme,
Administrators
of
the
Estate
of
Duke
Osolin
de
Topor
in
such
amounts
and
directing
the
Sheriff
to
recover
such
indebtedness
from
them.
Thereafter
on
July
19,
1967,
an
order
was
granted
by
the
Registrar
of
this
Court
on
the
application
of
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
directing
that
the
style
of
this
cause,
and
of
the
Certificate
filed
in
this
Court
on
the
7th
day
of
October,
1966
and
of
the
Writ
of
Extent
issued
herein
on
the
same
date
be
amended
so
as
to
read
“IN
THE
MATTER
OF
the
Administrators,
Estate
of
DUKE
OSOLIN
DE
TOPOR,
c/o
Messrs.
Godin,
Godin,
Mehnert
&
Prud’homme,
1155
Dorchester
Boulevard
West,
Room
808,
of
the
City
of
Montreal,
in
the
Province
of
Quebec,”
instead
of
“IN
THE
MATTER
OF
GODIN,
GODIN,
MEHNERT
&
PRUD’HOMME,
Administrators
of
the
Estate
of
DUKE
OSOLIN
DE
TOPOR.”
On
August
14,
1967,
a
second
Writ
of
Extent
issued,
this
time
alleging
the
indebtedness^
of
the
Administrators
c/o
Messrs.
Godin,
Godin,
Mehnert
&
Prud’homme
and
directing
the
Sheriff
to
recover
from
them.
Seizures
of
the
bank
account
in
question
appear
to
have
been
made
under
both
Writs
of
Extent.
By
Sections
10
and
12(1)
of
the
Dominion
Succession
Duty
Act
the
primary
liability
for
the
duties
levied
by
it
is
imposed
on
the
successor.
By
Section
12(2)
liability
is
also
imposed
on
the
executor
in
his
capacity
as
such
executor
to
the
extent
of
the
value
of
the
property
administered
by
him.
By
Section
2(f)
“executor”
is
defined
as
meaning
“the
executor
or
administrator
of
a
deceased
person,
and
includes
an
executor
de
son
tort’’.
Under
Section
22(1)
the
Minister
is
required
to
assess
the
duty
or
duties
payable
and
to
send
notice
of
such
assessment
by
registered
mail
to
the
executor
and
it
is
further
provided
that
such
notice
shall
be
deemed
to
be
notice
to
all
persons
liable
for
payment
of
the
duties.
Section
22(2)
then
provides
that
if
there
is
no
executor
liable
or
accountable
for
any
duty
or
duties
notice
of
assessment
shall
be
sent
by
registered
mail
to
the
successor.
Section
58
reads
as
follows:
58.
(1)
All
duties,
interest
and
penalties
payable
under
this
Act
remaining
unpaid,
whether
in
whole
or
in
part,
after
four
months
from
the
date
of
maiilng
of
the
notice
of
assessment
may
be
certified
by
the
Deputy
Minister.
(2)
On
the
production
to
the
Exchequer
Court
of
Canada,
such
certificate
shall
be
registered
in
the
said
Court
and
shall,
from
the
date
of
such
registration,
be
of
the
same
force
and
effect,
and
all
proceedings
may
be
taken
thereon
as
if
the
certificate
were
a
judgment
obtained
in
the
said
Court
for
the
recovery
of
a
debt
of
the
amount
specified
in
the
certificate,
including
interest
to
date
of
payment
as
provided
for
in
this
Act
and
entered
upon
the
date
of
such
registration.
(3)
Where
a
certificate
is
registered
pursuant
to
subsection
(2)
in
respect
of
the
liability
of
an
executor,
any
writ
of
execution
issued
under
and
by
virtue
of
such
registration
shall
be
executed
only
against
the
property
of
the
deceased
being
administered
by
him
unless
he
has
been
guilty
of
contravening
section
49
in
which
case
it
may
be
executed
against
property
owned
by
him
personally.
(4)
All
reasonable
costs
and
charges
attendant
upon
the
registration
of
such
certificate
shall
be
recoverable
in
like
manner
as
if
they
were
part
of
such
judgment.
1940-41,
c.
14,
s.
57;
1943-44,
c.
24,
s.
1.
It
is
I
think
apparent
that
the
notice
of
assessment
here
in
question
does
not
purport
to
be
made
directly
to
an
heir
or
successor.
On
the
contrary
it
purports
to
be
a
notice
to
‘
administrators”.
Its
validity,
therefore,
as
well
as
that
of
the
certificate
under
Section
58,
the
Writ
of
Extent,
and
the
execution
of
the
Writ,
depends
on
the
existence
of
someone
who,
under
the
Act,
is
liable
or
accountable
as
the
administrator
of
the
deceased
for
the
duties
in
question.
So
far
as
I
can
see,
however,
there
appears
to
be
no
one
who
answers
that
description.
The
assessment
was
addressed
to
‘‘
Administrators’’
without
naming
them.
The
certificate
as
originally
filed
alleged
Godin,
Gadin,
Mehnert
and
Prud’homme
to
be
the
administrators
and
to
be
liable
as
such
but
that
was
not
in
accord
with
the
notice
of
assessment
and
it
was
changed
at
the
instance
of
the
Minister.
Nor
is
there
evidence
that
that
firm*
or
any
member
of
it
or
any
other
person
was
ever
constituted
administrator
of
the
estate.
The
concept
of
an
administrator
appointed
by
a
court
of
probate
in
whom
title
to
real
or
personal
estate
or
both
may,
according
to
the
law
of
the
particular
jurisdiction,
vest
on
appointment
and
whose
title
thereupon
relates
back
to
the
moment
of
death,
is
well
known
in
the
common
law
provinces
of
Canada.
Such
an
appointment
is,
however,
not
known
to
the
law
of
the
Province
of
Quebec,
where
title
to
property
of
an
intestate
passes
on
death
directly
to
the
successor.
Nor
is
the
appointment
of
anyone
falling
within
the
concept
of
administrator,
as
that
term
is
used
in
Section
2(f)
of
the
Act,
to
be
presumed
from
the
mere
addressing
of
a
notice
of
assessment
to
‘‘the
administrator’’.
Such
a
person,
as
I
understand
the
concept,
is
no
mere
agent
or
attorney
instructed
to
act
for
a
beneficiary
but
a
person
appointed
by
a
court
having
authority
to
make
such
an
appointment,
in
whom
the
property
of
the
deceased
vests
for
the
purpose
of
administration.
The
material
before
the
Court
therefore,
in
my
view,
does
not
warrant
the
granting
of
the
order
applied
for
but
instead
of
dismissing
the
application
at
this
stage
I
will,
if
so
requested
within
two
weeks
from
the
filing
of
these
reasons,
adjourn
it
to
give
counsel
an
opportunity
to
supplement,
if
he
can,
the
material
on
file
with
further
material
showing
who,
if
anyone,
has
been
properly
constituted
as
administrator
of
the
said
estate,
and
by
what
authority,
in
which
event
on
notice
to
such
person
and
to
Messrs.
Godin,
Godin,
Mehnert
&
Prud’homme
and
the
Royal
Bank
the
matter
may
again
be
brought
on
for
hearing.
Email this Content