MARTIN
C.J.S.:—These
are
appeals
by
way
of
stated
case
from
the
decisions
of
the
Saskatchewan
Assessment
Commission
in
which
it
was
held
that
the
appellant
companies
are
liable
to
assessment
in
respect
of
business
carried
on
by
them
on
Crown
property.
For
the
sake
of
convenience
both
appeals
were
argued
together.
The
cases
are
stated
under
the
provisions
of
an
amendment
to
the
Rural
Municipality
Act
contained
in
c.
25
of
the
Statutes
of
Saskatchewan
1943,
s.
18,
which
provides
that
the
Assessment
Commission
may
at
any
stage
of
the
proceedings
state
a
case
for
the
opinion
of
the
Court
of
Appeal
on
a
question
of
law
and
that
any
party
to
the
proceedings
may
within
seven
days
after
the
decision
of
the
Commission
request
the
Commission
to
state
a
case
for
the
opinion
of
the
Court
on
a
question
of
law
only.
Both
appellant
companies
have
since
some
time
in
1940
operated
air
training
schools
within
the
limits
of
the
respondent
municipality
under
agreements
made
by
them
with
the
Crown
represented
by
the
Minister
of
National
Defence
for
Air.
The
appellant,
the
Northern
Saskatchewan
Flying
Training
School
Ltd.
carries
on
its
operations
on
land
leased
by
the
Crown
from
the
City
of
Prince
Albert
and
the
Prince
Albert
Air
Observers’
School
Ltd.
operates
on
land
owned
by
the
Crown.
Both
ap-
pellants
are
companies
incorporated
by
charter
under
the
Dominion
Companies
Act.
The
purposes
for
which
the
companies
were
incorporated,
as
stated
in
the
charters
are
:"To
establish,
maintain,
conduct
and
operate
a
school
or
schools
for
instruction
and
training
in
flying
to
be
operated
for
the
purposes
of
and
in
conjunction
with
the
British
Commonwealth
Air
Training
Plan.”
The
Prince
Albert
Air
Observers’
School
Ltd.
has
a
stated
share
capital
of
$50,500
comprised
of
500
preference
shares
of
$100
each
and
50
common
shares
of
a
par
value
of
$10
each,
and
it
is
provided
in
the
charter
that
the
holders
of
the
preference
shares
shall
be
entitled
to
receive
‘‘out
of
the
monies
of
the
company
properly
applicable
to
the
payment
of
dividends”
first
fixed
cumulative
preferential
cash
dividends
at
the
rate
of
5%
per
annum.
There
is
also
a
provision
that
the
company
may,
on
giving
notice
from
time
to
time,
purchase
outstanding
preferred
shares
by
paying
the
amount
paid
up
thereon,
together
with
any
accumulation
of
preferred
dividends.
It
is
also
provided
that
no
dividends
shall
at
any
time
be
declared
or
paid
on
the
common
shares.
In
the
event
however
of
the
liquidation
or
winding-up
of
the
company,
the
holders
of
the
preferred
shares
are
entitled
to
receive
the
amount
paid
up
on
such
shares
together
with
all
unpaid
preferential
dividends
before
any
amount
is
distributed
to
the
holders
of
the
common
shares.
From
these
provisions
it
seems
clear
that
the
common
shareholders
are
entitled
to
any
surplus
monies
resulting
from
the
operations
of
the
company,
if
indeed
a
profit
is
made,
as
the
result
of
such
operations.
The
charter
of
the
Northern
Saskatchewan
Flying
Training
School
Ltd.
is
in
similar
terms
except
that
any
excess
in
profits
beyond
the
5%
dividend
rate
to
preferred
shareholders
is
payable
to
the
flying
club
or
clubs
under
whose
auspices
the
company
was
sponsored
instead
of
to
the
holders
of
common
stock
as
in
the
case
of
the
Prince
Albert
Air
Observers’
School
Ltd.
Acting
under
the
provisions
of
s.
329
of
the
Rural
Municipality
Act,
R.S.S.
1940,
ce.
129,
the
council
of
the
respondent
municipality
on
August
1,
1942,
by
resolution
directed
the
secretary-treasurer
to
place
on
the
assessment
roll
an
assessment
of
$50,000
against
the
appellant,
the
Northern
Saskatchewan
Flying
Training
School
Ltd.,
and
a
similar
resolution
was
passed
with
respect
to
the
appellant,
the
Prince
Albert
Air
Observers’
School
Ltd.
Pursuant
to
such
resolutions,
the
secretary-treasurer
placed
on
the
roll
the
names
of
both
appellants
with
the
assessments
as
directed
by
the
council,
and
on
August
4th,
under
the
provisions
of
s.
330,
sent
notices
of
assessment
to
the
appellants
together
with
statements
to
the
effect
that
the
council
would
sit
as
a
Court
of
Revision
on
October
5,
1942,
for
the
purpose
of
hearing
appeals
against
such
assessments.
The
assessments
were
confirmed
by
the
council
sitting
as
a
Court
of
Revision
and
an
appeal
was
taken
to
the
Saskatchewan
Assessment
Commission,
when
the
assessments
were
again
affirmed.
[1943]
1
W.W.R.
696,
and
also
at
p.
710.
In
the
case
stated
several
questions
are
submitted
for
the
opinion
of
the
Court
but
three
only
require
reference:
(1)
Does
s.
329
of
the
Rural
Municipality
Act
confer
power
upon
the
council
to
direct
the
secretary-treasurer
to
place
upon
the
roll
the
name
of
the
person
to
be
assessed
together
with
the
amount
of
the
assessment?
(2)
Are
the
appellant
companies
merely
performing
services
for
the
Crown
on
Crown
property
and
therefore
not
liable
to
assessment?
(3)
Are
the
appellant
companies
operating
business
within
the
meaning
of
the
Rural
Municipality
Act?
It
is
submitted
by
counsel
for
the
appellants
that
under
s.
329
there
is
provision
only
for
the
council
directing
the
secretarytreasurer
to
enter
the
name
of
the
person
on
the
roll
and
no
provision
is
made
enabling
the
council
to
direct
the
entry
on
the
roll
of
the
amount
for
which
the
person
is
to
be
assessed.
Section
329
is
as
follows:
"‘If
at
any
time
before
the
first
day
of
December
it
is
discovered
that
any
person
liable
to
assessment
is
not
assessed
or
that
there
is
any
error
in
any
of
the
particulars
contained
in
the
roll
or
that
any
person
has
commenced
business
after
the
roll
was
completed,
the
council
may
direct
the
secretary
treasurer
to
enter
the
name
of
such
person
on
the
roll
or
to
correct
the
error
and
every
such
entry
or
correction
shall
be
dated
and
initialed
by
the
secretary
treasurer:
"
"
Provided
that,
where
a
person
commences
business
in
premises
which
have
not
been
occupied
for
business
purposes
at
any
time
during
the
then
current
year,
the
business
tax
shall
be
levied
only
for
the
portion
of
the
year
during
which
the
business
is
carried
on.”
It
will
be
observed
that
while
the
word
"
‘
assessment
”
does
not
occur
in
s.
329,
the
proviso
is
to
the
effect
that
the
business
tax
"‘shall
be
levied
only
for
the
portion
of
the
year
during
which
the
business
is
carried
on’’.
The
levy
of
the
tax
contemplates
the
assessment
of
some
amount
upon
which
the
tax
can
be
fixed
and
in
my
opinion
s,
329
as
a
whole
contemplates
not
only-the
entry
of
the
name
upon
the
roll
but
also
the
amount
of
the
assessment.
Moreover,
when
s.
329
is
read
along
with
s.
330,
which
provides
for
the
procedure
to
be
followed
subsequent
to
the
entry
made
in
the
roll,
it
is
clear
that
an
assessment
is
intended
because
s.
330
provides
that
every
person
whose
name
is
added
shall
be
given
every
reasonable
opportunity
"‘to
complain
or
appeal
against
the
assessment
‘
It
was
contended
by
counsel
that
s.
329
could
not
apply
to
the
appellant
companies
because
of
the
fact
that
the
council
knew
of
the
activities
of
the
companies
prior
to
the
date
when
the
assessment
roll
is
required
to
be
completed
under
s.
286
of
the
Act,
namely,
not
later
than
May
31st.
As
to
this
it
should
be
stated
that
the
section
provides
for
the
discovery
of
the
omission
from
the
roll
prior
to
December
1st,
and
moreover
the
discovery
contemplated
by
the
section
is
of
"‘a
person
liable
to
assessment
who
has
not
been
included
in
the
roll
as
completed
on
May
the
31st”.
An
assessor
in
making
up
the
roll
may
not
assess
some
person
because
of
the
lack
of
information
to
justify
such
action,
but
if
the
information
necessary
to
warrant
the
conclusion
that
an
assessment
should
be
made
is
obtained
before
December
1st,
the
council
may
take
the
action
provided
for
in
s.
329.
The
agreements
entered
into
by
the
appellant
companies
with
the
Crown
represented
by
the
Minister
of
National
Defence
for
Air
contain
many
provisions
but
for
the
purpose
of
this
case
it
is
sufficient
to
refer
to
only
a
few
of
them.
The
Crown
agrees
to
provide
the
flying
and
ground
facilities
and
the
companies
agree
to
maintain
the
facilities
at
their
own
expense
and
to
provide
personnel
for
the
management,
operation
and
maintenance
of
the
schools
other
than
instructors
and
a
supervising
officer
who
are
to
be
supplied
by
the
Minister.
The
companies
agree
to
supply
water,
electricity,
fuel,
stationery,
laundry,
telephone,
stenographic
and
office
help
and
food
for
the
pupils
and
supervisory
staff.
The
supervising
officer
is
placed
in
charge
of
the
instructors
and
pupils
and
is
given
wide
powers
with
respect
to
the
training
of
pupils
no
doubt
for
the
purpose
of
assuring
that
the
training
in
the
schools
is
carried
on
in
accordance
with
the
requirements
of
the
Department
of
National
Defence
for
Air.
There
is
a
provision
to
the
effect
that
the
Crown
will
indemnify
the
companies
against
claims
of
persons
(other
than
officers
and
servants
of
the
companies)
due
to
damages
arising
out
of
the
operation
and
construction
of
the
schools.
There
is
also
a
provision
that
the
Crown
will
indemnify
the
companies
against
any
action
or
claim
relating
to
the
infringement
of
any
patent
in
connection
with
the
aeroplanes,
engines
or
other
equipment
supplied
to
the
companies.
The
companies
are
liable
for
all
loss
or
damage
to
all
equipment,
materials
and
things
of
every
nature
and
kind
whatsoever
(save
and
except
air-frames
and
engines
which
are
the
subject
of
special
provisions),
unless
the
companies
establish
to
the
satisfaction
of
the
Minister
that
the
loss
or
damage
has
not
occurred
as
a
result
of
the
negligence
of
the
officers,
servants
or
agents
of
the
companies.
The
Crown
agrees
to
furnish
the
companies
with
aeroplanes
of
such
type
and
design
as
shall
be
from
time
to
time
decided
by
the
Minister
and
in
the
event
of
a
variation
in
the
cost
of
operation
by
reason
of
a
change
in
the
type
of
aeroplane
furnished,
the
remuneration
of
the
companies
shall
be
adjusted
in
a
manner
to
be
mutually
agreed
upon.
It
is
declared
that
all
aerodromes,
aeroplanes,
engines
and
equipment
provided
by
the
Crown
without
cost,
shall
be
deemed
to
be
on
loan
to
the
companies.
The
companies
are
declared
to
be
responsible
for
the
maintenance
in
good
flying
condition
of
the
aeroplanes
supplied
and
are
to
repair
to
the
satisfaction
of
the
Minister
all
aeroplanes
and
engines
requiring
repairs
;
it
is
provided
however
that
the
companies
may
return
to
the
Crown
any
aeroplane
or
engine
requiring
repair
subject
to
payment
by
the
companies
of
certain
stated
sums
of
money,
the
amounts
thereof
depending
upon
whether
or
not
the
need
for
repair
has
been
caused
by
the
negligent
act
of
an
officer
or
servant
of
the
company
and
also
upon
the
type
of
air-frame
returned.
Provision
is
also
made
that
in
the
event
of
the
companies
becoming
bankrupt
or
having
a
receiving
order
made
against
them
or
in
the
event
of
a
resolution
being
passed
for
winding-up,
His
Majesty
may
terminate
the
agreements
and
take
the
operation
of
the
schools
out
of
the
hands
of
the
companies,
and
the
companies
are
then
to
have
no
further
claims
under
the
agreements
except
for
monies
payable
in
respect
of
training
furnished
prior
to
such
termination
and
are
to
be
liable
for
all
loss
and
damage
suffered
by
the
Crown
by
reason
of
such
bankruptcy,
receiving
order
or
winding-up.
The
agreements
contain
provisions
which
are
designed
to
limit
the
profits
which
may
be
made
by
the
companies.
It
is
provided
that
if
in
respect
of
any
period
of
24
weeks
the
cost
of
operation
as
ascertained
by
the
Minister
is
less
than
the
total
amount
payable
in
respect
to
Such
period,
the
payment
to
which
the
companies
are
entitled
shall
be
an
amount
equal
to
the
actual
cost
of
operation
plus
25%
of
the
difference
between
the
actual
cost
and
the
amount
payable
under
the
agreements
in
respect
of
such
period;
and
if
the
actual
cost
of
operation
in
respect
of
any
period
of
24
weeks
exceeds
the
amount
payable
as
remuneration
under
the
agreements,
there
shall
be
paid
to
the
companies,
in
addition
to
the
amount
payable
under
the
agreements,
the
difference
between
the
amount
payable
and
the
actual
cost
of
operation
less
25%
of
such
difference.
In
return
for
the
services
rendered
by
the
companies,
the
agreements
provide
for
remuneration
as
follows:
The
actual
expenses
incurred
by
the
companies
prior
to
the
period
when
instruction
commences
and
subsequent
thereto
a
stated
sum
for
each
four
weeks’
period
of
operation
and
in
addition
a
stated
monthly
sum
to
provide
for
clerical
assistance,
accounting
and
office
work;
a
stated
sum
is
also
provided
per
flying
hour
based
upon
the
cost
of
gasolene
and
oil
and
a
further
sum
per
flying
hour
to
provide
a
reserve
in
respect
to
the
obligation
of
the
companies
to
maintain
the
aeroplanes;
and
also
a
stated
sum
per
day
in
respect
of
each
pupil
and
member
of
the
supervisory
staff
for
whom
messing
is
provided.
The
provisions
of
the
agreements
above
referred
to
make
it
clear
that
the
appellant
companies
operate
the
schools
not
as
servants
or
agents
of
the
Crown,
but
on
their
own
account
and
as
independent
contractors,
and
it
is
clear
that
they
are
engaged
in
such
operation
for
the
purpose
of
making
a
profit
limited
only
by
the
terms
of
their
charters
and
by
the
provisions
of
the
agreements,
which
have
the
effect
of
limiting
the
profit
which
may
be
made.
In
support
of
the
contention
that
the
appellants
cannot
be
assessed
on
the
ground
that
they
are
engaged
in
performing
services
for
the
Crown
on
Crown
property,
counsel
referred
to
the
decision
of
the
Supreme
Court
of
Canada
in
Halifax
v.
Halifax
Harbour
Com’rs,
[1935],
1
D.L.R.
657,
S.C.R.
215.
There
is
however
no
analogy
between
the
facts
in
that
case
and
the
facts
here
under
review.
In
that
case
the
Halifax
Harbour
Commissioners
were
a
Board
set
up
by
statute
for
the
purpose
of
managing
and
administering
Crown
property;
the
tolls
and
charges,
revenue
and
expenditure
were
under
the
control
of
a
department
of
the
government
;
the
regulations
for
the
control
of
the
harbour
were
effective
only
under
the
authority
of
the
government;
the
salaries
paid
to
members
of
the
Board
were
fixed
by
the
government
and
the
salaries
of
officials
and
servants
were
under
government
control;
any
surplus
of
revenue
after
providing
for
the
cost
of
services
and
interest
on
debenture
debt
went
into
a
sinking
fund
under
the
direction
of
the
minister
in
charge
of
the
government
department,
with
the
result
that
no
profit
could
accrue
to
the
Board
or
any
member
of
the
Board.
Vide
remarks
of
Duff
C.J.C.
at
pp.
664-5
D.L.R.,
pp.
226-7
S.C.R.
That
the
appellants
are
engaged
in
business
as
defined
by
the
Rural
Municipality
Act
and
are
taxable
with
respect
thereto,
there
can
be
no
doubt.
Under
s.
283
of
the
Rural
Municipality
Act
it
is
provided
that
municipal
taxes
shall
be
levied
upon
land,
buildings
and
business.
Under
s.
2,
para.
3,
business
is
defined
as
including
‘‘any
trade,
profession,
calling,
occupation
or
employment’’.
Section
288
provides
for
the
manner
in
which
business
shall
be
assessed
by
empowering
the
assessor
to
fix
a
rate
per
square
foot
of
the
floor
space
of
each
building
used
for
business
purposes.
According
to
the
evidence
adduced
this
was
the
course
adopted
in
assessing
the
appellants.
It
has
been
held
that
a
business
tax
is
a
personal
tax
and
is
not
a
tax
on
property.
Moose
Jaw
v.
B.A.
Ou
Co.,
[1937]
2
W.W.R.
309
at
pp.
314-5;
Kitchener
v.
Allen
Theatres
Ltd.
(1922),
22
O.W.N.
231;
Re
Hertzman
&
Hertzman
(1931),
40
O.W.N.
561.
Moreover,
there
can
be
no
doubt
that
a
person
may
be
assessed
in
respect
of
a
business
carried
on
by
him
on
Crown
property.
In
Smith
v.
Vermilion
Hills,
30
D.L.R.
83,
[1916]
2
A.C.
569,
it
was
held
that
while
under
the
B.N.A.
Act,
s.
125,
a
Province
has
no
power
to
tax
Crown
lands,
it
has
the
power
to
impose
a
tax
on
the
interest
of
a
tenant
of
Crown
lands
in
the
lands
held
by
him
excluding
any
interest
which
still
remains
in
the
Crown.
In
that
case
the
taxable
interest
was
that
of
a
tenant
under
leases
granted
him
by
the
Crown
for
grazing
purposes.
Vide
also
Montreal
v.
A.-G.
Can.
and
A.-G.
Que.,
70
D.L.R.
248,
[1923]
A.C.
1386.
The
word
‘‘business’’
as
is
stated
by
the
Master
of
the
Rolls
in
Smith
v.
Anderson
(1880),
15
Ch.
D.
247
at
p.
258,
has
a
very
wide
signification,
and
if
one
looks
at
the
dictionary
it
will
be
found
that
many
meanings
are
attached
to
it,
some
of
which
are
inapplicable
when
we
speak
of
a
person
carrying
on
business.
The
definition
in
the
Act
refers
to
‘‘trade,
occupation
or
employment”,
and
under
s.
286
the
assessor
is
obligated
on
or
before
May
31st
in
each
year
to
place
on
the
roll
among
other
assessable
persons
the
name
of
every
person
who
is
engaged
in
mercantile,
professional
and
any
other
business
within
the
municipality,
save
that
of
a
farmer,
stock-raiser
or
person
otherwise
engaged
in
agricultural
pursuits.
Considering
the
definition
of
"business”
and
ss.
286
and
288,
I
am
of
the
opinion
that
the
intention
of
the
Legislature
is
to
enable
the
municipality
to
levy
a
tax
upon
any
person
who
is
engaged
in
any
trade,
profession,
calling,
occupation
or
employment
within
the
municipality
‘‘which
occupies
the
time
and
attention
and
labour
.
.
.
.
for
.
.
.
.
profit”.
Smith
v.
Anderson,
supra.
Rideau
Club
v.
Ottawa
(1907),
15
O.L.R.
118.
Osler
J.A.
at
p.
122.
Maclaren
J.A.
at
p.
124.
I
am
of
the
opinion,
therefore,
that
the
appellant
companies
have
been
properly
and
legally
assessed.
The
appeals
should
therefore
be
dismissed
with
costs.
Appeals
dismissed.
Email this Content