City of Montreal v. Weston Bakeries Ltd.

COUR SUPRtME DU CANADA

I would dismiss the appeal with costs.

et ux.

J.:-This is an appeal by leave, from a majority judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench', rendered October 2, 1961, which reversed a judgment of the Superior Court dated May 2, 1955 and maintained respondent's action in the sum of $926.10 with interest from December 4, 1951, and costs.

Respondent is a corporation carrying on the bakery business in the Town of Jacques Cartier in the Province of Quebec.

On November 12, 1951, respondent took action against the appellant to recover $926.10 paid by respondent to appellant during the years 1949, 1950 and 1951 for permits and licenses in accordance with certain by-laws of appellant, as having been paid in error.

Respondent has no property or place of business in the City of Montreal. Its products are sold and distributed exclusively to merchants, traders or manufacturers in the ordinary course of their business, and are sold at wholesale only. Respondent's products are not sold directly to consumers, but are distributed in the City of Montreal by its driver-salesmen who load their vehicles at respondent's place of business in the Town of Jacques Cartier. The driver-salesmen maintain a record of the inventory of each of their customers and order their requirements from respondent two days in advance on the basis of the customers' previous sales record for each particular week-day.

All vehicles used by respondent in the distribution of its products are registered in respondent's name at its place of business in the Town of Jacques Cartier.

Appellant sought to oblige respondent to obtain licenses and permits for the purpose of distributing its products in the City of Montreal and to pay the fees imposed therefor under ss. 3 and 5 of appellant's by-law No. 1862. Subsidiarily, appellant has also invoked its by-laws No. 926 and No. The principal point in issue in the present appeal relates to the application of s. 6 of the Municipal Tax Exemption Act, R.S.Q. 1941, 221, as amended, which reads:

Abbott J.

This section, which had its origin in the statute 50 Vict., c. 15, has undergone a series of amendments over the years, by which the exemption provided for has been extended. The most recent amendment prior to these proceedings was made by the statute 4 Geo. VI, c. 48, s. 1.

In my opinion the respondent clearly comes within the provisions of the said s. 6 of the Municipal Tax Exemption Act as amended, and is entitled to the protection which it affords.

I adopt as my own the following statement of Bissonnette J. in the Court below:

Si I'on faisait la genise de cette loi qui remonte b 50 Vict. chap. 15, on y rel&verait plusieurs temphraments que le l6gislateur y a apportis. D'une loi qui sur les refontes de 1888, 1909 et 1925 ne se rapportait qu'd l'exemption des commis voyageurs de certaines taxes, on en 6tendit les cadres de fagon quasi-illimit6e pour les non-r6sidents d'une corporation municipale. En effet, la loi 4, Geo. VI, chap. 48, art. 1, a substitu6 le mot 'personne' A. la locution 'commis voyageurs', de sorte que, selon le texte de 1'art. actuel ci-haut reproduit, une corporation municipale, en d6pit de sa charte, ne peut obliger une personne (ceci comprend une soci~t6 ou une compagnie) 'n'ayant pas de place d'affaires & payer des taxes ou . se munir d'un permis' quand elle ne fait que le commerce de gros. Or, tel est 1?A le genre d'affaires exerches par l'appelante. D'oii il faut conclure que celle-ci a ill6galement tax6e.

I would dismiss the appeal with costs.

R.C.S.