MACF'ARLANE,
J.—This
is
a
Motion
for
a
Writ
of
Certiorari
to
remove
into
this
Court
the
decision
of
the
Board
of
Referees,
appointed
by
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue,
pursuant
to
the
provisions
of
the
Excess
Profits
Tax
Act,
1940,
being
Chapter
32
of
the
Statutes
of
Canada
1940,
whereby
the
said
Board
purported
to
ascertain
the
standard
profits
of
Nanaimo
Community
Hotel
Limited
pursuant
to
the
said
Act,
which
said
decision
bears
date
the
15th
day
of
May,
1948,
with
the
purpose
in
view
of
quashing
the
said
Order.
Counsel
for
the
Board
raises
the
preliminary
objection
that
there
is
no
jurisdiction
in
this
Court
to
deal
with
the
decision
of
the
Board
and
refers
to
Sections
65
to
67
of
the
Income
War
Tax
Act
made
applicable
by
Section
14
of
the
Excess
Profits
Tax
Act
1940,
"‘to
matters
arising
under
the
provisions
of
this
Act
to
the
same
extent
and
as
fully
and
effectively
as
they
(Sections
40
to
87),
both
inclusive)
apply
under
the
provisions
of
the
Income
War
Tax
Act’’.
The
Board
of
Referees
is
appointed
pursuant
to
Section
13
of
the
said
Excess
Profits
Tax
Act.
The
proceedings
in
respect
of
which
the
complaint
herein
is
made
were
those
envisaged
by
Section
5
of
the
said
Act.
The
complaint
is
that
the
proceedings
were
taken
before
an
incomplete
Board
and
without
due
hearing
of
the
representations
of
the
Hotel
Company.
Following
the
alleged
decision,
which
the
applicant
now
asks
this
Court
to
quash,
an
assessment
was
made
and
from
that
assessment
Notice
of
Appeal
was
filed.
When
the
application
was
made
the
Board,
according
to
the
material
filed,
was
sitting
in
Vancouver,
British
Columbia.
Section
66
of
the
Income
War
Tax
Act
reads
in
part
as
follows
:—
1’66.
Subject
to
the
provisions
of
this
Act
the
Exchequer
Court
shall
have
exclusive
jurisdiction
to
hear
and
determine
all
questions
that
may
arise
in
connection
with
any
assessment
made
under
this
Act
.
.
.”
Mr.
Cunliffe
argues
that
that
section
presupposes
that
an
assessment
has
been
made,
and
that
as
I
understand
him,
the
words
"in
connection
with’’
mean
"‘Consequent
upon’’.
I
do
not
think
that
is
the
correct
construction
to
be
put
upon
these
words.
One
of
the
very
generally
accepted
meanings
of
"‘con-
nection
‘‘is"’
relation
between
things
one
of
which
is
bound
up
with
or
involved
in
another’’;
or
again
‘‘having
to
do
with’’.
The
words
include
matters
occurring
prior
to
as
well
as
subsequent
to
or
consequent
upon
so
long
as
they
are
related
to
the
principal
thing.
The
phrase
‘‘having
to
do
with’’
perhaps
gives
as
good
a
suggestion
of
the
meaning
as
could
be
had.
I
think
Section
66
is
sufficient
to
oust
the
jurisdiction
of
this
Court
to
deal
with
a
decision
on
which
an
assessment
is
subsequently
made.
It
is
not
necessary,
therefore,
for
me
to
deal
with
the
other
phases
of
the
very
interesting
and
instructive
argument
presented
on
behalf
of
the
Motion.
The
Motion
must
be
dismissed
with
costs.
Email this Content