Wilkes v. Interlake Tissue Mills Co. Ltd.

Wilkes v. Interlake Tissue Mills Co. Ltd.

Majority held s.131(1)(f) is a remedial provision broad enough to permit refund where a taxpayer has been overcharged by reason of a gross or manifest error; a reduction of approximately fifty percent qualified as 'gross' and entitled the taxpayer to a proportional refund of the 1960 taxes attributable to the 1959 over-assessment; s.72 and s.131 serve different functions and s.131 is not confined to mere clerical errors.

Citation
[1970] SCR 441
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Arthur A. Wilkes, Assessment Commissioner for the Corporation of the City of St. Catharines; Respondent/defendant: Interlake Tissue Mills Co. Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 December 1969
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Assessment Act S.131 Refund, Assessment Appeal S.72, Gross or Manifest Error, Tax Refund, Statutory Interpretation
Source Language
English
Taxation Municipal Law Administrative Law Property Assessment Assessment Act S.131 Refund Assessment Appeal S.72 Gross or Manifest Error Tax Refund +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arthur A. Wilkes, Assessment Commissioner for the Corporation of the City of St. Catharines

Appellant/plaintiff

Interlake Tissue Mills Co. Limited

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.131(1)(f) of The Assessment Act authorizes refund of taxes where valuation error produced substantial over-assessment
  2. 2 Whether taxpayer must use s.72 appeal procedure for valuation disputes or may seek refund under s.131
  3. 3 Whether a reduction of approximately 50% constitutes a 'gross' error under s.131(1)(f)

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held s.131(1)(f) is a remedial provision broad enough to permit refund where a taxpayer has been overcharged by reason of a gross or manifest error; a reduction of approximately fifty percent qualified as 'gross' and entitled the taxpayer to a proportional refund of the 1960 taxes attributable to the 1959 over-assessment; s.72 and s.131 serve different functions and s.131 is not confined to mere clerical errors.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Order of the Court of Appeal restored