App. Div. 1919 City of Wetaskiwin V. C. & E. Townsites, Ltd. considered to be at the northern end of the province. It is a matter of most common and general knowledge that new towns grow up on a new railway at the places selected by the railway for stations. It is also quite a matter of history that trustees were named by this company for the handling of its townsites. These trustees of course had names of their own but probably not one in fifty who knew of their existence knew Harvey, C.J. or cared what their names were and they were commonly known and spoken of as the "C. & E. Townsite Trustees," or more shortly the "Townsite Trustees." I can see no reason to doubt that an assessment of their lands under that name would be a perfectly good assessment. The defendants were incorporated in 1913 and they held their titles to the assessed lands under certificates of title issued in August, 1915. There is nothing whatever to indicate that they are not trustees of these lands exactly as their predecessors in title were, though it would have been a very simple matter to prove if they hold in any other capacity. The evidence indeed seems to indicate the contrary. If they are in fact still the "Townsite Trustees" I can see no ground for maintaining that they are not properly assessed when so described. The plaintiffs were refused permission, improperly I think, to give evidence of the manner of previous assessments, but there seems to be ample evidence to show that Osler, Hammond and Nanton, the well-known firm of brokers of Winnipeg, were managers of these lands both before and after the title became registered in the name of the defendants. The notices of assessment and demands for taxes for both years 1916 and 1917 were sent addressed to "Townsite Trustees" or "Townsite Trustees, Ltd.," in care of that firm and they were received by the defendants and produced by them for the purposes of this trial. So much of the corresondence as was permitted to be given. in evidence shows that the defendants accepted the description as a proper one of themselves. In February, 1917, Osler, Hammond and Nanton were asked for the taxes for 1915 and 20-A.L.R. App. Div. 1919 City of Wetaskiwin 1916, all then due and unpaid. In March they sent a cheque for $600 to be applied on the taxes for 1915, stating that they hoped soon to pay the remainder of the taxes for 1915 and a part of them for 1916. The plaintiffs' first letter was adTownsites, dressed to them as "Managers, C. & E. Townsites Limited,” but the acknowledgment of the receipt of the payment adHarvey, C.J. dressed them as "Managers, Townsite Trustees Ltd.” V. C. & E. Ltd. In April, Osler, Hammond and Nanton wrote suggesting a payment of all the arrears in three instalments if the plaintiffs would forego the penalties. The plaintiffs replied regretting their inability to do this, and a month later wrote again asking for payment. Subsequently, though when and how does not appear, the remainder of the 1915 taxes were paid, but no more. In the correspondence there is no reference to any particular lands or names and it is apparent that both parties assumed that the other quite understood what taxes were being referred to. In June, 1917, the defendants appealed from the assessment of a portion of the lands "on grounds of excessive valuation.” This appeal went to the District Court Judge who made some reduction. The defendants of course would have had no occasion to appeal if the lands had not been assessed to them but they had the notice of assessment addressed to the "Townsite Trustees" and they appealed without offering any objection to the manner in which they were described. I find it impossible to avoid the conclusion that they understood as the plaintiffs intended that the description was supposed to be a description of them. They quite clearly were in no way misled and it seems to me that there is no valid reason for objection on the ground that they were not in fact properly assessed. It is also objected that there was failure to comply with sec. .23 of The Municipal Ordinance, C.O., ch. 70, providing for the appointment of an assessment committee by the councii consisting of "the mayor or reeve, secretary-treasurer and assessor or any two others with the assessor." There was an assessment committee appointed each year consisting of the mayor, the assessor and an alderman, but it happened that the assessor was also secretary-treasurer, as was permitted by the ordinance. It is contended that the mayor is to be excluded except when the first alternative is adopted, that both of the two to act with the assessor must be other than the two named if one is. I consider this a rather strained construction even if "other" does mean other than those named. The mayor and one alderman would be an other two than the mayor and secretary-treasurer and might, I think, be not improperly called "two others." Certainly it seems impossible to conceive any reason for excluding both the mayor and secretary-treasurer unless both can be included. I am, however, disposed to think that "two others" means two other than the assessor. This would seem quite clear if the order were changed and it said the "assessor with two others." That seems also to be the probable intention. The assessor must be a member and some two other persons are to be associated with him. Another objection which goes to the whole assessment is that there was no proper tax-roll. All of the information which is contained in the assessment roll is required for the tax-roll. The roll is contained in a bound book, the left-hand page containing the information required for the assessment roll and the right the additional information for the tax-roll. The Town Act, 1911-12, ch. 2, authorizes the method of preparing a tax-roll but The Municipal Ordinance which applies to the plaintiffs has no such provision. I fail however to see why any authority should be required. It seems a most sensible method and free from any substantial objection. It is true that the assessor in his evidence stated that the tax-roll is contained on the right page but it is quite apparent that that is not what he meant and the two pages together constitute a tax-roll and I have no doubt that is what he meant, but whether so or not the document speaks for itself. Another important objection raised is to the adequacy of the description of a portion of the land assessed. This land is described simply as "179.60 acres unsubdivided." Sec. 122 of The Municipal Ordinance provides that the assessor shall set down in the roll the information called for in the heading App. Div. 1919 City of Wetaskiwin V. C. & E. Townsites, Ltd. Harvey, C.J. App. Div. 1919 City of on the prescribed form. The form prescribes a "description in full and extent or amount of property against each taxable Wetaskiwin person or any interest which is liable to assessment, showing section, township and range, or lot and block, or other local Townsites, description." V. C. & E. Ltd. Harvey, C.J. I do not think it necessary to determine whether the description mentioned is a strict compliance with that statutory provision or whether it would be sufficient to render the land liable. The only question necessary to decide is whether as against the defendants this description is sufficient to render them liable to a personal judgment against them. The statutory provision is no doubt for the benefit of the person assessed and therefore it seems clear that any description which he furnished to the assessor or approved of would be one to which he ought not to be allowed to take exception. It appears that this land consists of numerous parcels, an accurate description of which would be very difficult to make and involve much labour in setting out. As I have already indicated the defendants appealed from the assessment of this unsubdivided portion in 1917 and obtained a reduction in the amount, not of the acreage, but of the valuation. No question was raised by the notice of appeal as to the sufficiency of the description of the quantity of the land and the assessor in his evidence says they agreed upon the quantity. It is suggested that the assessor only meant that they agreed on the quantity in 1917 and that that could not affect the 1916 assessment, but that the amount was right in 1917 is of course some evidence that it was right in 1916. Osler, Hammond and Nanton were managers for both the former and the present registered owners and I think the plaintiffs ought to have been allowed to show how this had been assessed in previous years, but evidence on that point was objected to and ruled out. There is, however, sufficient in the evidence of the assessor to show that this description was in the 1915 roll and that the taxes for that year were paid. App. Div. 1919 City of Wetaskiwin V. C. & E. In Toronto v. Russell [1908] A.C. 493, 78 L.J.P.C. 1, property was described as "8 57/100 acres (1,242 x 300 east side Carlaw Ave., north of Queen St.)." The Courts below held (15 O.L.R. 484, 11 O.W.R. 23) that the assessment was invalid because the description was insufficient. The Privy Townsites, Council, however, reversed this decision. Lord Atkinson at p. 499 ([1908] A.C.) said: "There is much to show that the Harvey, C.J. description was adequate. Its alleged insufficiency was not shown to have misled anybody, least of all the plaintiff.” That description contains more information than the present one, but it nevertheless is not sufficient to enable one to go and find the land and therefore in principle I cannot see that there is any distinction. It is true the decision in that case went on a curative section but the remark I have quoted leads to the belief that if there had been no such section the assessment would have been upheld. Likewise in this case I would rest my conclusion not so much on the view that the description is sufficient for all purposes but that it is a description which has been accepted and in effect authorized by the defendants. The only other objection requiring consideration is that the rate for 1917 is in excess of the statutory authority. Sec. 8 of the City's Charter (ch. 41 of 1906) fixes a maximum rate of 20 mills with the proviso that for meeting the cost of public works it may reach 25 mills. The taxes for 1917 were 124 mills for general purposes and 9 mills for debenture purposes making a total of 214, or 14 mills more than the maximum authorized unless the proviso applies. There was no direct testimony as to whether any of this is for the cost of any public work. Power is given to the city by its charter to construct public works and to issue debentures to raise money for such purpose. Without examining carefully to ascertain whether there could be debentures for any other purpose it certainly seems probable that the nine mills is partly, if not wholly, for the cost of public works, but I am of opinion that the burden is in Ltd. |