NWT Commr. v. Pine Point Mines, (1981) 31 A.R. 248 (NWTSC)

JudgeGreschuk, J.
CourtSupreme Court of Northwest Territories (Canada)
Case DateJuly 10, 1981
JurisdictionNorthwest Territories
Citations(1981), 31 A.R. 248 (NWTSC)

NWT Commr. v. Pine Point Mines (1981), 31 A.R. 248 (NWTSC)

MLB headnote and full text

Commissioner of the Northwest Territories v. Pine Point Mines Limited

Indexed As: Northwest Territories (Commissioner) v. Pine Point Mines Ltd.

Northwest Territories Supreme Court

Greschuk, J.

July 10, 1981.

Summary:

The Commissioner of the N.W.T. applied for a declaration on whether a dragline owned by a mining company was an "improvement" within the meaning of s. 2(e)(ii) of the Taxation Ordinance, R.O.N.W.T. 1974, c. T-1.

The Northwest Territories Supreme Court declared the dragline, being machinery that formed an integral part of the respondent's operational unit used in the production of natural resources, was an "improvement" and liable to assessment and taxation.

Real Property Tax - Topic 1561

Persons and property liable to assessment - Real property - Land defined, including improvements, fixtures and structures - Whether a dragline an improvement - Taxation Ordinance, s. 2(e)(ii) - The Northwest Territories Supreme Court found a dragline, being machinery or equipment that formed an integral part of a mine's operational unit, was used in the production rather than in the processing and manufacture of natural resources and therefore was an "improvement" and liable to assessment and taxation under the Act - See paragraphs 14 to 75.

Real Property Tax - Topic 1568

Persons and property liable to assessment - Real property - Evidence and proof - Taxation Ordinance, s. 2(e)(ii) - The Northwest Territories Supreme Court stated that the onus is on a taxing authority to prove a dragline was an "improvement" within s. 2(e)(ii) of the Act and the benefit of the doubt must be resolved in favour of the owner - See paragraph 11.

Real Property Tax - Topic 41

Interpretation of taxing statute - General - The Northwest Territories Supreme Court stated that a statute imposing a tax must be in clear, unambiguous language and should be strictly construed - See paragraph 8.

Real Property Tax - Topic 41

Interpretation of taxing statute - General - The Northwest Territories Supreme Court stated, unless provided otherwise, words in a taxing statute must be interpreted in their ordinary grammatical sense - See paragraph 10.

Statutes - Topic 1703

Interpretation - Extrinsic aids - Books and comments - Dictionaries - The Northwest Territories Supreme Court stated that, when words in a statute are used in their ordinary unrestrictive sense, it is proper to resort to recognized dictionaries to determine their meaning - See paragraph 16.

Cases Noticed:

O'Brien v. Cogswell, 17 S.C.R. 420, consd. [para. 5].

Cape Brandy Syndicate v. Inland Revenue Commrs., [1921] 1 K.B. 136, consd. [para. 6].

King v. Crabbs, [1934] 4 D.L.R. 327, consd. [para. 7].

Tennant v. Smith, [1892] A.C. 150, consd. [para. 7].

Confor Ltd. v. Minister of Finance (B.C.), [1976] 3 W.W.R. 521, refd to. [para. 8].

Lyne v. Checker Stage Service Ltd., [1932] 1 W.W.R. 335, refd to. [para. 8].

Hasken Estates v. Minister of National Revenue, [1948] Ex. C.R. 580; [1953] 1 D.L.R. 270, refd to. [para. 10].

Northern Broadcasting Co. v. District of Mountjoy, [1950] S.C.R. 502, appld. [para. 19].

In Re Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia Railway Company and McLellan School District and In Re Mannix & Walgren and McLellan School District, [1928] 2 W.W.R. 684 (Alta. D.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Dixon (Inspector of Taxes) v. Fitch's Garage Ltd., [1975] 3 All E.R. 455 (Ch. Div.), refd to. [paras. 30, 39].

Warren Bituminous Paving Co. Ltd. v. Corporation of Township of Otonabee (1962), 35 D.L.R.(2d) 609 (Ont. H.C.J.), refd to. [paras. 30, 39].

Minister of National Revenue v. Bethlehem Copper Corp. Ltd. (1975), 49 D.L.R.(3d) 321 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 30].

Township of Waters v. International Nickel Co. of Canada Ltd. (1959), 18 D.L.R.(2d) 689 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 30].

Nova Scotia Sand and Gravel Limited v. Canada (1980), 34 N.R. 297 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Sogemines Limited v. Municipal District of Stony Plain No. 84, [1971] 5 W.W.R. 481 (Alta. S.C.), refd to. [paras. 30, 33, 39].

Director of Assessment v. Riverport Seafoods Limited and Municipality of the District of Lunenburg (1981), 44 N.S.R.(2d) 281; 83 A.P.R. 281 (N.S.C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Commonwealth Plan, Inc. v. Kosydar (1976), 350 N.E.(2d) 672 (Ohio S.C.), dist. [para. 30].

State v. Mine & Contractors Supply Co. Inc. (1955), 83 So. 2d 425 (Alabama S.C.), dist. [para. 30].

State v. Twin Seam Mining Co., Inc. (1962), 145 So. 2d 177 (Alabama S.C.), dist. [para. 30].

Fry et al. v. Lost Key Mines Inc. et al. (1952), 239 P.2d 69 (Calif. Dist. C.A.), dist. [para. 30].

W.G. Thomson & Sons Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, 66 D.T.C. 291, refd to. [paras. 35, 61].

Federal Farms Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1966] Ex. C.R. 410; [1966] C.T.C. 62, refd to. [paras. 35, 62].

Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Barclay Curle and Co. Ltd., [1969] All E.R. 732 (H.L.), consd. [para. 39].

Nova Scotia Sand and Gravel Limited v. R., [1978] C.T.C. 279, refd to. [para. 50].

Minerals Separation Limited et al. v. Hyde, 207 Fed. R. 945, refd to. [para. 59].

Minister of National Revenue of the Dominion of Canada v. Dominion Shuttle Co. (1933), 72 Que. S.C. 15, consd. [para. 70].

Re H. Robinson Corporation Limited; R. v. Martin (trustee), 19 C.B.R. 22, consd. [para. 71].

Friday v. Hall and Kaul Co. (1910), 216 U.S. 449, consd. [para. 71].

Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U.S.1, 20, consd. [para. 72].

Township of Waters v. International Nickel Co., [1959] S.C.R. 585; 18 D.L.R.(2d) 689, consd. [para. 74].

Statutes Noticed:

Taxation Ordinance, R.O.N.W.T. 1974, c. T-1, sect. 2(e)(ii) [paras. 1, 2, 12, 13, 77]; sect. 3 [para. 12].

Interpretation Ordinance, R.O.N.W.T. 1974, c. I-3, sect. 11 [para. 8].

Assessment Act, S.A. 1960, c. 5, sect. 2 [para. 33].

Rules of Court (N.W.T.), rule 14(e)(ii) [paras. 1, 3].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Driedger, The Construction of Statutes, 1974, p. 69 [para. 9].

Oxford English Dictionary [paras. 17, 18]; Vol. III, p. 1423 [para. 48].

Webster's New International Dictionary [para. 21].

Webster's Third New International Dictionary [paras. 56, 67]; p. 1173 [para. 23].

Webster's Third New International Unabridged Dictionary, p. 1581 [para. 24].

Shorter Oxford English Dictionary [para. 55]; p. 1592 [para. 49]; Vol. II, p. 1374 [para. 26]; Vol. I, p. 1203 [para. 69].

Webster's Second New International Dictionary (1959) [para. 57].

Counsel:

Jeffrey G. Gilmour, for the applicant;

John Z. Vertes, for the respondent.

The judgment of the Northwest Territories Supreme Court was delivered by GRESCHUK, J., on July 10, 1981.

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • Northwest Territories (Commissioner) v. Pine Point Mines Ltd., (1982) 42 A.R. 200 (NWTCA)
    • Canada
    • Northwest Territories Court of Appeal (Northwest Territories)
    • November 30, 1982
    ...Northwest Territories Supreme Court declared that the dragline was an "improvement" and liable to assessment and taxation - see 31 A.R. 248. The mining company appealed to the Northwest Territories Court of Appeal. The Northwest Territories Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and d......
1 cases
  • Northwest Territories (Commissioner) v. Pine Point Mines Ltd., (1982) 42 A.R. 200 (NWTCA)
    • Canada
    • Northwest Territories Court of Appeal (Northwest Territories)
    • November 30, 1982
    ...Northwest Territories Supreme Court declared that the dragline was an "improvement" and liable to assessment and taxation - see 31 A.R. 248. The mining company appealed to the Northwest Territories Court of Appeal. The Northwest Territories Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and d......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT