MIDDLETON,
J.A.:—A
special
case
stated
by
His
Honour
Uriah
McFadden,
Judge
of
the
County
Court
of
the
County
of
Kent,
pursuant
to
s.
85
of
the
Assessment
Act,
R.S.O.
1937,
c.
272,
concerning
an
appeal
from
the
Court
of
Revision
assessing
the
Tobacco
Co.
with
respect
to
two
properties
in
the
City
of
Chatham
for
business
assessment
pursuant
to
s.
8(1)
(e)
of
the
said
Act,
the
question
stated
by
the
said
stated
case,
being,
“Was
I
right
in
holding
that
the
appellant
(the
Tobacco
Co.)
is
not
liable
to
business
assessment
under
s.
8(1)
(e)
of
the
said
Act?"
The
stated
case
is
not
in
proper
form.
It
should
contain
a
concise
statement
of
the
findings
of
the
Judge
and
of
the
question
upon
which
the
opinion
of
the
Appellate
Court
is
sought;
instead,
it
contains
some
discussion
of
the
question
as
to
whether
the
case
has
been
properly
asked
for,
and
then
leaves
it
to
the
Court
of
Appeals
to
unravel
from
a
long
opinion
the
findings
of
the
Judge
and
his
opinion
thereon.
It
is
desirable
that
the
opinion
of
the
learned
County
Judge
should
accompany
the
stated
case,
but
the
stated
case
should
embody
in
concise
and
precise
terms
his
findings.
As
might
be
expected,
the
departure
from
good
practice
resulted
in
some
unnecessary
discussion
before
this
Court.
From
the
papers
sent
to
us
it
appears
that
the
Tobacco
Co.
is
engaged
in
manufacturing
and
processing
tobacco.
This
manufacturing
business
is
carried
on
in
a
warehouse
or
factory
on
the
east
side
of
St.
Clair
St.
in
Chatham;
all
its
plant,
equipment
and
executive
offices
are
located
in
a
building
thereon.
The
result
of
the
manufacturing
process
is
that
the
tobacco
is
prepared
for
sale
by
being
placed
in
hogsheads
in
which
it
is
stored
until
sold.
For
the
purpose
of
storage
the
Tobacco
Co.
has
procured
premises
on
the
north
side
of
Patterson
Ave.
and
has
also
leased
other
premises
on
the
south
side
of
Spencer
Ave.,
in
the
Hayes
Wheel
and
Forgings
Co.,
the
owner
of
these
premises,
and
which
charges
a
storage
rate
of
121%c
per
month
for
every
hogshead
stored.
These
two
premises
are
quite
remote
from
the
St.
Clair
St.
factory.
The
City
of
Chatham
seeks
to
impose
an
assessment
upon
the
Tobacco
Co.
under
s.
8
with
respect
to
these
two
subsidiary
parcels
of
land,
which,
it
is
conceded,
are
used
entirely
for
storage
purposes.
Section
8
of
the
Assessment
Act
provides
that
every
person
occupying
or
using
land
"‘for
the
purpose
of
any
business
mentioned
or
described
in
this
section’’
shall
be
assessed
for
a
sum
to
be
called
business
assessment.
Subsection
(e)
provides
the
assessment
of
every
person
‘‘carrying
on
the
business
of
a
manufacturer’’
for
a
sum
equal
to
60%
of
the
assessed
value.
The
learned
County
Court
Judge
has
held
that
in
these
two
storage
warehouses
the
Tobacco
Co.
is
not
carrying
on
the
business
of
a
manufacturer.
These
premises
are
used
solely
for
the
purpose
of
storing
goods
already
manufactured
in
the
St.
Clair
St.
premises
where
the
manufacturer
is
assessed
in
respect
of
the
manufacturing
business
carried
on
by
it.
The
decision
of
the
Supreme
Court
in
Loblaw
Groceterias
Co.
v.
Toronto,
[1936]
3
D.L.R.
346,
is
conclusive
upon
this
point.
It
is
said
that
if
the
goods
were
stored
until
sold
in
the
building
on
St.
Clair
St.
the
company
could
not
escape
assessment
upon
these
premises,
and
that
this
shows
they
cannot
escape
assessment
for
business
merely
because
they
store
the
goods
elsewhere.
This
may
be
so,
but
it
cannot
aid
in
the
solution
of
the
problem
here
presented.
It
is
also
said
that
an
assessment
might
well
have
been
imposed
equal
to
5%
of
the
assessed
value
under
the
latter
clause
of
s.
(k).
The
Loblaw
case
shows
that
our
jurisdiction
is
confined
to
answering
the
questions
properly
submitted
under
the
stated
case.
The
stated
case
here
asks
only
the
one
question,
and
with
that
alone
have
we
anything
to
do.
The
question
submitted
by
the
stated
case
is
therefore
answered
in
the
affirmative,
and
the
City
of
Chatham
will
be
ordered
to
pay
to
the
Tobacco
Co.
the
costs
of
this
appeal.
Judgment
accordingly.
Email this Content