THORSON, J.:—During the period between April 1, 1933, and April 29, 1941, the defendant declared and paid dividends to non-residents of Canada on its fully registered 5% cumulative perpetual preference stock. It is alleged that it should have withheld five per

SLOAN, C.J.B.C.: I am of the opinion that the Supreme Court of the Province has jurisdiction in proceedings by way of certiorari to determine if the Board of Referees has acted, as Lord Parmoor expressed it in Local Government Board v.

LE COUR, parties entendues et après examen du dossier, et délibéré ;

ATTENDU QUE :

Mr. Justice Stuart MCDOUGALLz—Defendant (respondent) was incorporated by statute with the powers and subject to the limitations and control by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council and by the several Ministers, as set forth in the Statute. It operates in the City of

KERWIN J.—The sole point for determination raised by the parties to this litigation is whether the appellant, Canada China Clay, Limited, is liable to the respondent, the Treasurer of the Province of Ontario, for a tax and penalties under the provisions of

Martin C.J.S.—This is an appeal by way of stated case from a decision of the Saskatchewan Assessment Commission dated July 22, 1944, whereby the Commission held that the appellant had been validly assessed for business tax by the respondent. The case is

THORSON, J.—This is an appeal under the Income War Tax Act, R.S.C. 1927, chap. 97, from an assessment for the year 1940 and turns on the question whether the appellant was residing or ordinarily resident in Canada during such year.

G. M. BLACKSTOCK, K.C., Chairman — This is an appeal to the Alberta Assessment Commission by Construction Supply Company from the decision of the Court of Revision of improvement district No. 123, which confirmed the assessment of the following personal property

BOULANGER, J.—Par son action, signifiée le 7 octobre 1942. le demandeur réclame à la défenderesse une somme de $191.55, comme solde des taxes de vente que la défenderesse devrait percevoir et verser durant une certaine période de temps.

Judgment: Whereas the City of Montreal took action against the respondent to collect a so-called "‘business tax’’ imposed and levied in virtue of by-law 1642 of the City of Montreal, duly authorized by the City charter ;