Donohue v. Corporation of Parish of St.Etienne de La Malbaie

appeal side, province of Quebec, reversing the judgment of the Superior Court, Stein J. and dismissing the appellant's By this last mentioned judgment the municipal valuation roll was declared null and void, because it had not been made up in accordance with the real value of the properties assessed, and because there had been included in the value of the property assessed as taxable, the value of a large quantity of machinery which should have been excluded. The appellants are the owners of a pulpmill located on the Murray River in the parish of St. Etienne de la Malbaie. When this mill was established in 1910, the owners were exempted from certain municipal taxes for a period of years which had not yet expired at the time of the action, and also obtained a commutation of school taxes for a period of ten years, which expired in 1920. The appellants are the successors of the original owners of this pulpmill, and in the fall of 1920 they received accounts for school taxes assessed on a valuation of $575,000 for their pulpmill and $24,000 for other real estate belonging to them. As they never had had any taxes to pay up to that time, they had never given the proceedings of the municipal council or of the school board any attention, but upon receipt of these bills they inquired into the situation and found that a valuation roll had been drawn up during the summer of 1920, and that though the farmers' lands were valued in this roll at from one-third to one-half of their real value, their pulpmill was valued at $5,000 for the land and at $570,000 for the building and machinery. Now they knew that when this mill was built, it had cost only $540,250, as follows: For the buildings $94,600; for the hydraulic development, excavations, dams and so forth, $169,000; and for machinery, $276,650. They were advised that this machinery though attached to the building was not immovable by nature but only by destination, and that the value thereof should not have been included in that of their taxable property. They were also advised that a municipal roll had been drawn up in accordance with the real value of the properties, and that a roll in which they were practically the only ratepayers assessed at their real value, whilst all the others were assessed at less than one-half of their real value, could not be sustained.

They immediately brought an action in the Superior

Court to have this valuation roll set aside, and they made the School Commissioners parties to this action, as under the Quebec system municipal valuation rolls are used as the basis for the apportioning of school taxes.

within the meaning of Arts. 16 (27), 651 and 656 M.C.

(2) does not apply in this case, and the appellant had the right to invoke Art. 50 C.C.P. and ask the Superior

Court to annul the valuation roll. C6t6 vs Corporation of

County of Drummond.

The appellant did not allege nor prove in this action an interest sufficient in law;

as it describes itself as owner, but not as tax payer or elector.

The machineries, factories or machine shops are taxable under the Municipal Code; art. 719 old M.C. Commissioners Report, p. xxv, under art. 580; art. 656, M.C.

The remedy exercised by the appellant was barred by prescription; art. 430, 433, 662, 664 M.C.

The appellant has no action under article 50 C.C.P.

J. (dissenting).-This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of King's Bench, appeal side, reversing the judgment of the Superior Court.

The action was brought by the appellants to have the valuation roll of the respondent, made in the year 1920, declared null.

That roll came into force on the 5th of September, 1920, by its confirmation by the council of respondent on that date.

The appellant had failed to appeal to the council although due notice had been given of its having been drawn up by duly qualified assessors and duly deposited by them as required by law.

Two months after said three months had elapsed they brought this action, and they pretend to found it upon Art. 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

sETINNE

There is no fraud proven, or even alleged, except by using the word "illegal".

All that is proven, and that could have been rectified if J. appellants had taken advantage of the duly provided means therefor, is that the assessors had not assessed on the correct basis of the market value but as many others do in rural municipalities, drew a line at a third of that.

If the assessors are to be believed they tried their best to make this apply to everybody, including the appellants. They, if the appellants are to be believed, made the very serious mistake of being led to believe the property now in question was worth a million and a half.

That could all have been corrected if appellants had done their duty.

I think this case falls within our ruling in the case of Town of St. Michel v. Shannon Realtibs, Limited (1), and upheld by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (2). I have long held that when municipalities are created and given the power to assess and produce an assessment roll as the basis of their power to impose a tax rate, and that is accompanied by a specific means of rectification of the roll on the application of those having a right to complain, that unless there has been actual fraud or something done clearly ultra vires, there is no remedy such as invoked herein conceivably intended by any legislature to have been applicable to such a system.

The confusion sure to ensue from the setting aside, by any court, of the assessment roll, once it has been finally adopted, and acted upon, seems so repugnant to what we should expect the legislature to have intended, that clear and explicit language is necessary to enable us to attribute to it any such absurdity.

The Court of King's Bench has adopted the clear meaning of the judgment expressed by the court above, in the above cited case, and has, in the reasons assigned by Mr. Justice Dorion and Mr. Justice Rivard, shewn why it has applied as well to rural municipalities as to towns and cities.

I cannot see how they can be distinguished if we have due regard to the legal principle involved in each.

The little peculiarities in the modes of expression used in the respective enactments governing towns and cities and those dealing with rural municipalities are such that, with due respect, I cannot find worthy of serious attention after reading the reasons assigned in the court appealed from.

I would dismiss this appeal with costs.

J.-I concur with my brother Mignault in thinking that the machinery in question is not assessable as immovable property.

Since the property is not assessable, I can see no reason why the principle of Toronto Railway Company v. City of

Toronto (1) is not applicable.

The appeal should be allowed; there should be a declaration in accordance with the view above expressed.

J.--Three questions arise in this appeal:- With the learned trial judge and my brother Mignault, for the reasons indicated by the latter, I am of the opinion that the first and second questions should be determined in the appellants' favour.

It is on the third point that the Court of King's Bench decided against them on the authority of the recent decision of the Judicial Committee in Shannon Realties, Limited, v. Ville St. Michel (2). With the utmost respect, I am of the opinion that that decision is not in point and that the failure of the appellants to proceed under either of the articles of the Municipal Code above referred to does not preclude their maintaining an action under Art. 50 C.C.P.

I regard the present case as falling within the principle of the decision of the Privy Council in Toronto Railway Co. City of Toronto (1).

The ground of the appellants' action is that they have been assessed for property which is non-assessable. If that be so, the assessment in that particular was made without J. jurisdiction. Now the power conferred on the Municipal Council by Arts. 662 and 664 M.C. is to amend the roll so as to do justice; the power of the Circuit, County, District or Magistrates Court under Art. 430 M.C. is to annul a roll for. illegality. An assessment made with jurisdiction over the subject matter and therefore not void ab initio is assumed in both provisions. The council is empowered to amend such an assessment; the function of the curiae designatae is to deal with questions of illegality in the making up of the roll and, upon a case therefor being established, to annul the roll as a whole.

The appellants' machinery was non-assessable. In assessing the appellants in respect of it the assessors were dealing with something beyond their jurisdiction. The assessment was therefore a nullity and neither appeal from it nor action to question the roll for illegality in respect of it was necessary. As to the latter, moreover, the inclusion in a roll of a parcel of non-assessable property would seem not to be such an illegality as. would warrant its annulment, which under Art. 430 M.C. apparently must be of the entire roll. The inclusion of the non-assessable property is simply ineffectual.

Such property, though included in the roll, cannot be made the subject of taxation.

But the person so assessed is not without a remedy. He is entitled to have the assessment of non-assessable property declared null and void, with or without, such consequential relief as was granted in the Toronto Railway Case (1). In the Shannon Case (2) the subject-matter of the assessment was admittedly within the jurisdiction of the assessors; it was over-valuation that was complained of; that over-valuation was charged to be the result of a systematic disregard of the prescribed principles of assessment. That was held by their Lordships to be matter cognizable under the provisions made for appeals by the Cities and Towns

Act, Articles-5706 and 5715 R.S.Q.

Accordingly, in their opinion, Art. 50 C.C.P. could not be invoked to obtain, on that ground, the nullification of valuation rolls which covered several years and against which appeals that would have afforded the ratepayer all the relief it was entitled to and were the special remedy designated by the statute had not been taken. Nothing in the Shannon Case (1) interferes in the least with the principle of the decision in the

Toronto Railway case.

I am of the opinion that Art. 662 M.C.-as was the case with s. 68 of the Ontario Assessment Act dealt with in the

Toronto Railway Case (2)-was not intended to provide a remedy for a person against whom an assessment had been made entirely without jurisdiction and in respect of nonassessable property. Article 430 M.C., on the other hand, deals not with particular assessments but with matters of illegality affecting the valuation roll as a whole and requiring its annulment. That is not this case. Except for the inclusion of an assessment on the appellant's machinery the validity of the roll appears to be unassailable. They are not, I think, entitled to have it set aside as a whole. Their right is to have the ultra vires assessment declared null.

Under these circumstances Art. 50 C.C.P. appears to afford a convenient and appropriate remedy which, I think, should be accorded. I would therefore, with great respect, allow this appeal to the extent of directing judgment to be entered declaring the assessment of the appellants' machinery null and void both as to the defendant municipality and as to the mis en cause. The appellants are entitled to their costs throughout.

J.-Les appelants, entre autres griefs d'appel, pr6tendent que 1'intim6e a exc6d6 sa juridiction en 6valuant comme partie de leur moulin A pulpe les machines qui s'y trouvent. Ces machines sont d'une valeur tris considirable, $276,650, disent les appelants, alors que le moulin luimime vaudrait $94,600 et les travaux hydrauliques $169,- 000. Le r8le d'6valuation donne au tout, les machines comprises, une valeur de $575,000.

Les appelants avaient un grand intir~t A attaquer ce r6le, car bien qu'ils eussent une exemption de taxes municipales, ils payaient les cotisations scolaires qui sont bas6es sur le r8le d'6valuation. Et pour que le jugement A intervenir filt opposable aux commissaires d'6coles de la paroisse, ces derniers ont 6t6 assignbs comme mis-en-cause. L'action a 6t6 contest6e par la d6fenderesse, la corporation de la paroisse de Saint-Etienne de La Malbaie.

Pour d6terminer si les machines dans le moulin A pulpe pouvaient 6tre 6valudes avec ce moulin, il faut interpr6ter le sous-paragraphe 27 de 1'article 16 et Particle 656 du code municipal. Ces dispositions se lisent comme suit:- Le renvoi que ce dernier article faith Particle 657 est sans intir&t dans cette cause.

L'intim6e pr6tend qu'elle pouvait tenir compte des machines en 6valuant ce moulin h pulpe. Elle soutient que ces machines sont comprises dans le sens du mot "btiments" ou "constructions", et qu'A tout 6v6nement ce sont des "am6liorations" et imposables comme telles en vertu des articles que j'ai cites.

On parait admettre que les machines en question sont des immeubles par destination. Cependant, bien qu'il s'agisse d'une taxe immobilibre, tout ce qui est immeuble n'est pas par lh m~me et n6cessairement imposable en vertu du code municipal, ainsi que nous l'avons jug6 dans Breakey v. Metgermette Nord (1).

Et l'immeuble par destination, 6tant, par d6finition, un objet mobilier par sa nature qui est consid6r6 comme immobilier h titre d'accessoire d'un immeuble auquel il se rattache, diffbre de l'immeuble par nature en ce que son immobilisation est purement juridique et fictive, et non pas mat6rielle et rielle (Planiol, tome ler, no 2210).

On ne peut jamais dire qu'il fait partie du batiment ou construction ofi il se trouve, car alors il serait un immeuble par sa nature.

Pour cette raison, je ne comprendrais pas les machines immobilis6es par destination dans la signification du mot "bitiment" ou "construction".

Mais peut-on dire que ces machines soient des "am6liorations" au sens des dispositions que j'ai cities?

On trouve souvent le mot "am6liorations" dans le langage du droit civil. Les auteurs du Nouveau Denisart (vo. Amiliorations, parag. ler) les d6finissent comme suit:- A

Ils distinguent les am6liorations des impenses, en disant que celles-ci sont des d6penses soit n6cessaires et utiles, soit voluptuaires, tandis que les am6liorations ne s'entendent que des d6penses qui donnent plus de valeur et de prix A

1'hdritage.

On rencontre aussi le mot "am6liorations" aux articles

417, 418 et 419 du code civil, qui diff~rent de l'article 555 du code frangais, lequel 6vite de se servir de 1'expression "am6liorations". Pour cette raison, j'ai pr6f6r6 remonter A 'ancien droit pour une d6finition de terme.

Les articles

417, 418 et 419 distinguent selon que les am6liorations sont necessaires ou non, ce qui semble indiquer, quant aux amliorations n6cessaires, qu'il s'agit surtout de r~parations. Je crois que les amiliorations dont il est question en ces articles ne sont autre chose que des constructions ou des rdparations

A des constructions, car on y parle de la possibilit6 de les enlever sans d6t6riorer le sol.

On peut aussi consid6rer qu'un terrain a 6t6 am6lior6 par les travaux qu'on y a faits, mais cette extension du mot "amelioration" ne nous aiderait pas ici. Il est clair qu'on ne regarderait pas comme une am6lioration au sens de ces dispositions, 1'ameublement d'une maison, et il me parait tres douteux qu'on y comprenne des machines install6es dans une usine, surtout ces machines peuvent s'en enlever.

Cependant il s'agit ici du code municipal et non du code civil, et h cet 6gard il sera utile de rapporter le texte de

1'article 719 de 1'ancien code que l'article 656 a remplac6.

Cet article disait:- L'article 719 distinguait les "usines et machineries" des "amliorations". Et de fait, il paraIt au rapport des commissaires qui ont r6dig6 le nouveau code municipal (1) que ces commissaires avaient propos6 un article, portant le num6ro 580 du projet du nouveau code, qui se lisait comme suit:- Les appelants nous disent que 1'association des manufacturiers canadiens fit des repr6sentations h la 14gislature A l'encontre de cette r6daction de 1'article, all6guant que les propri6taires de moulins et usines dans les municipalitis rurales ti-raient peu de b6n6fice des travaux faits par les autorit6s municipales, et qu'alors on ne devait pas imposer les machines install6es dans ces moulins et usines, mais seulement les idifices qui les contiennent. On ajoute que la l6gislature a fait droit A ces repr6sentations et a substitu6 a 1'article 580 du projet Particle 656 du nouveau code, qui remplace Particle 719 de 1'ancien, montrant que dans sa pens6e on ne doit pas tenir compte de la valeur des niachines en 6valuant, pour les fins du r8le d'&valuation, les moulins et usines oii ces machines sont installies.

Quoi qu'il en soit de la valeur juridique de cet argument, -et je ne veux pas en faire la base de mon jugement-il reste acquis que la 16gislature, en r6digeant le nouvel article 656, a omis les mots "usines ou machineies qui y sont 6rig6es", dans le texte anglais "factories or machine shops erected thereon", qui se trouvaient dans 1'ancien article 719. A l'ancien article, outre les usines ou machineries, on mentionnait les am6liorations, ce qui indiquait que ces am6liorations ne comprenaient pas les usines et machineries, mais s'entendaient d'am6liorations proprement dites, c'est- A-dire, je crois, rappelant la d6finition du Nouveau D6nisart, des d6penses qui avaient augment6 la valeur et le prix A du fonds. Le nouvel article retranche les mots "usines ou machineries" et conserve le mot "am6liorations", mais je ne crois pas qu'on puisse donner. a cette derniere expression dans le nouvel article une signification plus 6tendue qu'elle n'avait dans l'ancien article, surtout en tenant compte du fait que les mots "usines ou machineries" ont 6t6 supprimes dans la nouvelle r6daction.

Le mot "amiliorations" dans l'article 656 ne comprend done pas les machines install6es dans un moulin, m~me en reconnaissant h ces machines la qualit6 d'immeubles par destination, et il s'ensuit que l'intimbe ne pouvait les inclure dans son 6valuation du moulin a pulpe pour les fins du rle d'6valuation.

Telle a t6 la conclusion du premier juge. En adoptant moi-m~me cette conclusion, je n'ai pas h me mettre en contradiction avec la cour d'appel, qui ne s'est pas prononc6e sur cette question, car elle 6tait d'avis que la r6gle adopt6e par le conseil priv6 dans Shannon Realties, Ltd., v. Ville de

Saint-Michel (1) s'appliquait dans l'espice.

Cependant, comme en comprenant les machines dans l'6valuation du moulin h pulpe 1'intim6e a exc6d6 sa juridiction, la d6cision dans Shannon Realties (1) ne r6git pas le cas qui nous occupe. Le d6faut ou 1'exchs de juridiction entraine nullit6 absolue et celui qui en souffre a toujours le recours de l'article 50 du code de procidure civile.

Je n'ai pas besoin de me prononcer sur les autres griefs d'appel des appelants.

Je maintiendrais done 1'appel et j'annulerais le r8le d'6valuation de 1'intim6e, mais seulement en tant qu'il 6value le moulin h pulpe des appelants A la somme de $575,000, laissant subsister le r8le quant A ses autres parties, le tout avec d6pens contre l'intim6e dans toutes les cours.

J. (dissenting).-Je suis d'opinion que la dicision du Conseil priv6 dans la cause de Shannon Realties,

Ltd. v. La Ville de Saint-Michel (1), s'applique h la pr6sente cause et que les demandeurs n'ont pas le recours de l'action directe de Particle 50 du Code de Proc6dure Civile pour faire annuler le r8le d'6valuation pr6pard par la d6fen-