THURLOW, J.:—This is an application for an order directing the Royal Bank of Canada to pay to the Sheriff of the Judicial District of Montreal the sum of $33,508.79 standing to the credit of a savings account in a branch of the bank in Montreal in the name of Duke Osolin de Topor seized under a Writ of Extent issued to recover succession duties and interest assessed under the Dominion Succession Duty Act, R.S.C. 1952, ce. 89, following the death of the said Duke Osolin de Topor and for a further order that the said Sheriff pay over the said amount in satisfaction of the claim of the Crown against the estate of the said deceased for such succession duties, interest and costs
From the material on file it appears that the deceased was a resident of Costa Rica, that he died on March 23, 1955, and that a notice of assessment dated October 19, 1965 claiming $26,324.25 for succession duty and $13,349.64 for interest was addressed to “Administrators, Est. of Duke of Osolin de To-po—r, e/o- Messrs. Godin, Godin, Mehnert & Prud’homme, 1155 Dorchester Blvd., West, Room 808, Montreal, P.Q.’’.
On October 7, 1966 a document purporting to be a certificate under Section 57* [1] of the Dominion Succession Duty Actt [2] was filed in this Court alleging that $26,324.25 for tax and $14,449.35 for interest were due, owing and unpaid by Godin, Godin, Meh- nert & Prud’homme, Administrators of the Estate of Duke Osolin de Topor and on the same day a Writ of Extent issued alleging the indebtedness of Godin, Godin, Mehnert & Prud’homme, Administrators of the Estate of Duke Osolin de Topor in such amounts and directing the Sheriff to recover such indebtedness from them.
Thereafter on July 19, 1967, an order was granted by the Registrar of this Court on the application of the Minister of National Revenue directing that
the style of this cause, and of the Certificate filed in this Court on the 7th day of October, 1966 and of the Writ of Extent issued herein on the same date be amended so as to read
“IN THE MATTER OF the Administrators,
Estate of DUKE OSOLIN DE TOPOR,
c/o Messrs. Godin, Godin, Mehnert & Prud’homme, 1155 Dorchester Boulevard West,
Room 808,
of the City of Montreal,
in the Province of Quebec,”
instead of
“IN THE MATTER OF GODIN, GODIN, MEHNERT & PRUD’HOMME,
Administrators of the Estate of DUKE OSOLIN DE TOPOR.”
On August 14, 1967, a second Writ of Extent issued, this time alleging the indebtedness^ [3] of the Administrators c/o Messrs. Godin, Godin, Mehnert & Prud’homme and directing the Sheriff to recover from them.
Seizures of the bank account in question appear to have been made under both Writs of Extent.
By Sections 10 and 12(1) of the Dominion Succession Duty Act the primary liability for the duties levied by it is imposed on the successor. By Section 12(2) liability is also imposed on the executor in his capacity as such executor to the extent of the value of the property administered by him. By Section 2(f) “executor” is defined as meaning “the executor or administrator of a deceased person, and includes an executor de son tort’’.
Under Section 22(1) the Minister is required to assess the duty or duties payable and to send notice of such assessment by registered mail to the executor and it is further provided that such notice shall be deemed to be notice to all persons liable for payment of the duties. Section 22(2) then provides that if there is no executor liable or accountable for any duty or duties notice of assessment shall be sent by registered mail to the successor.
Section 58 reads as follows:
58. (1) All duties, interest and penalties payable under this Act remaining unpaid, whether in whole or in part, after four months from the date of maiilng of the notice of assessment may be certified by the Deputy Minister.
(2) On the production to the Exchequer Court of Canada, such certificate shall be registered in the said Court and shall, from the date of such registration, be of the same force and effect, and all proceedings may be taken thereon as if the certificate were a judgment obtained in the said Court for the recovery of a debt of the amount specified in the certificate, including interest to date of payment as provided for in this Act and entered upon the date of such registration.
(3) Where a certificate is registered pursuant to subsection (2) in respect of the liability of an executor, any writ of execution issued under and by virtue of such registration shall be executed only against the property of the deceased being administered by him unless he has been guilty of contravening section 49 in which case it may be executed against property owned by him personally.
(4) All reasonable costs and charges attendant upon the registration of such certificate shall be recoverable in like manner as if they were part of such judgment. 1940-41, c. 14, s. 57; 1943-44,
c. 24, s. 1.
It is I think apparent that the notice of assessment here in question does not purport to be made directly to an heir or successor. On the contrary it purports to be a notice to ‘ administrators”. Its validity, therefore, as well as that of the certificate under Section 58, the Writ of Extent, and the execution of the Writ, depends on the existence of someone who, under the Act, is liable or accountable as the administrator of the deceased for the duties in question. So far as I can see, however, there appears to be no one who answers that description. The assessment was addressed to ‘‘ Administrators’’ without naming them. The certificate as originally filed alleged Godin, Gadin, Mehnert and Prud’homme to be the administrators and to be liable as such but that was not in accord with the notice of assessment and it was changed at the instance of the Minister. Nor is there evidence that that firm* [4] or any member of it or any other person was ever constituted administrator of the estate.
The concept of an administrator appointed by a court of probate in whom title to real or personal estate or both may, according to the law of the particular jurisdiction, vest on appointment and whose title thereupon relates back to the moment of death, is well known in the common law provinces of Canada. Such an appointment is, however, not known to the law of the Province of Quebec, where title to property of an intestate passes on death directly to the successor. Nor is the appointment of anyone falling within the concept of administrator, as that term is used in Section 2(f) of the Act, to be presumed from the mere addressing of a notice of assessment to ‘‘the administrator’’. Such a person, as I understand the concept, is no mere agent or attorney instructed to act for a beneficiary but a person appointed by a court having authority to make such an appointment, in whom the property of the deceased vests for the purpose of administration.
The material before the Court therefore, in my view, does not warrant the granting of the order applied for but instead of dismissing the application at this stage I will, if so requested within two weeks from the filing of these reasons, adjourn it to give counsel an opportunity to supplement, if he can, the material on file with further material showing who, if anyone, has been properly constituted as administrator of the said estate, and by what authority, in which event on notice to such person and to Messrs. Godin, Godin, Mehnert & Prud’homme and the Royal Bank the matter may again be brought on for hearing.
*S. 57 of S. of C. 1940-41, c. 14 was renumbered s. 58 in R.S.C. 1952, c. 89.
‘Ç'As neither the word “certify” nor the expression “do hereby certify” appear immediately before the paragraph numbered "1”, I have had some doubt whether the document should be regarded as a certificate but have come to the conclusion that it can be so regarded in view of the wording “Certified at Ottawa, etc.” on the line above the signature.
{As I read it the amending order had made no change in the body of the certificate or Writ of Extent or to anything in either but the style of the heading.
*In a document filed by solicitors for Messrs. Godin, Godin, Mehnert & Prud’homme on August 9, 1968, and entitled “Opposition to pay ment” it is stated that that firm was appointed “administrators to the estate of the late Duke Osolin de Topor under a Power of Attorney dated the 26th day of October, 1964, before F. Fournier, Notary Pub lic, San Jose, by the President of the Board of Education of San Jose, sole heir of the said late Duke Osolin de Topor”. This, however, is a mere self-serving and unverified allegation and even if true it does not show either the constitution of that firm as an administrator or the capacity to constitute a person to be an administrator within the meaning of that term in Section 2(f) of the Dominion Succession Duty Act.