Yin-Tso Hsiung v Toronto,

• Docket Number: Case No. 40
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Date: 25 May 1950

Canada, Ontario High Court.

(Smily J.)

Case No. 40

Yin-Tso Hsiung

and

Toronto.

States — Immunities of — Immunity from Taxation — Property of State Occupied by Consul-General for Official Purposes — Whether Liable to Assessment for Municipal Taxes — The Law of Canada.

The Facts (as stated by the Court).—“The plaintiff, during the years 1946, 1947, 1948 and 1949, was a citizen of the Republic of China and was the Consul-General of career of the said Republic of China at the City of Toronto, in the Province of Ontario. Certain freehold land and premises known as No. 144 Riverview Drive, in the said City of Toronto, were held by the plaintiff in trust for the Government of the said Republic, and were occupied and used by the plaintiff with his subordinate officers, consisting of Consuls and Vice-Consuls of career and staff, all citizens of the Republic of China and employed by its Government, during those years as and for the public use of the Consulate-General representing that Government. The plaintiff as Consul-General lived on the premises with his family during the said years.

“The defendants, the Corporation of the City of Toronto, imposed certain realty taxes for the said years amounting in the aggregate to $4,801.11, in respect of the land and premises. The plaintiff claims a declaration that the lands and premises are immune from rates and taxes levied by the defendant against him for those years, on the ground that the land was the public property of the Government of the Republic of China during the said years and was used by the Chinese Government for the public use of the Chinese Consulate-General.”

Held: that the property at issue was not liable to assessment. The Court said:

“Property of a foreign Government occupied by its Consul-General and his staff and used for the public purposes of the foreign state is covered by the principles of immunity from local taxation recognized by international law. The Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1937, c. 272, is properly construed to preserve this immunity, and hence the municipality in which the property is situate may not assess it for realty taxes nor seek to enforce such taxes against the property, at least where the taxes do not cover payment for commodities, such as water rates, although they do purport to cover services such as street cleaning, garbage collection and school rates. It is not a proper ground for denying the claim of immunity that the Consul-General did not appeal against the assessment of the...