ROBERTSON C.J.0.:—This is an assessment appeal by : way of stated case under s. 85 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1937, c. 272, from the decision of Judge Macdonell, of the County Court of the County of York.

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

Bond C.J.S.C.:—For the sake of precision I set forth at length the joint factum or case as submitted:

Martin C.J.S.:—The respondent, the Beaver Lumber Co., is a Dominion company incorporated by letters patent and carries on business in several of the. Provinces. In its income tax return for the taxation period May 1, 1940, to April 30, 1941, under the

ROBERTSON C.J.O.:—This is an appeal from the order of the Ontario Municipal Board, dated January 4, 1943, whereby it allowed the appeal of the present respondent from the decision of Judge Parker, Judge of the County Court of the County of York, dated

RINFRET J.:—For the purposes of this case the parties have agreed upon the following statement of facts:

McDONALD C.J.B.C. :—This case involves the validity of municipal taxes on land owned by the respondent railway and leased to the Dominion and Province. In particular we are concerned with taxes relating to two buildings on this land, known as the Boeing

THORSON J.:—The appellant in this case is a chartered accountant whose place of residence is in the City of Quebec. By Order-in-Council P.C. 2975, dated October 3, 1939, and made on the recommendation of the Minister of Labour on the advice of the

HOPE J.:—In this action the plaintiff sues on behalf of the Crown in the right of the Dominion, to recover from the defendants the sum of $51,487.43 alleged to have been collected for and on behalf of the Crown from June 1st, 1934 to May 30th,

ANGERS J.:—This is an information exhibited by the Attorney- General of Canada on behalf of His Majesty the King whereby it appears that the latter claims from the defendant the sum of $10,844.46 for sales tax, penalties as provided for by section 106