Carleton Woollen Co. v. Town of Woodstock

Carleton Woollen Co. v. Town of Woodstock

The council resolution was void because it unlawfully discriminated by conferring exemption on "companies" but not individuals and was too indefinite and uncertain—it purported to exempt a company rather than identifiable property as authorized by the statute—therefore it could not support the appellants' claim; additionally appellants failed to strictly plead and prove they had "established" the mill within the meaning of the resolution.

Citation
(1907) 38 SCR 411
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): Carleton Woollen Company; Respondent (defendant): Town of Woodstock
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 March 1907
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Supreme Court of New Brunswick (equity) Following Allowance of Demurrer to Plaintiff's Bill / Hearing on Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; Judgment on Demurrer Affirmed
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick and the trial judge (demurrer allowed) affirmed
Legal Topics
Tax Exemption, Discrimination in Taxation, Statutory Interpretation, Municipal Powers to Exempt Property, Pleadings in Equity
Source Language
English
Municipal Law Taxation Law Administrative Law Tax Exemption Discrimination in Taxation Statutory Interpretation Municipal Powers to Exempt Property Pleadings in Equity

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carleton Woollen Company

Appellant (plaintiff)

Town of Woodstock

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Supreme Court of New Brunswick (equity) Following Allowance of Demurrer to Plaintiff's Bill / Hearing on Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; Judgment on Demurrer Affirmed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Town Council resolution under 36 Vict. c.81 s.1 validly exempted property from taxation
  2. 2 Whether the resolution unlawfully discriminated by conferring exemption on "companies" but not individuals
  3. 3 Whether the resolution was sufficiently certain in identifying exempt property (exempted company v. exempted property)

Ratio Decidendi

The council resolution was void because it unlawfully discriminated by conferring exemption on "companies" but not individuals and was too indefinite and uncertain—it purported to exempt a company rather than identifiable property as authorized by the statute—therefore it could not support the appellants' claim; additionally appellants failed to strictly plead and prove they had "established" the mill within the meaning of the resolution.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick and the trial judge (demurrer allowed) affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs