MIDDLETON, J.A.:—A special case stated by His Honour Uriah McFadden, Judge of the County Court of the County of Kent, pursuant to s. 85 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1937, c. 272, concerning an appeal from the Court of Revision assessing the Tobacco Co. with respect to two properties in the City of Chatham for business assessment pursuant to s. 8(1) (e) of the said Act, the question stated by the said stated case, being, “Was I right in holding that the appellant (the Tobacco Co.) is not liable to business assessment under s. 8(1) (e) of the said Act?"
The stated case is not in proper form. It should contain a concise statement of the findings of the Judge and of the question upon which the opinion of the Appellate Court is sought; instead, it contains some discussion of the question as to whether the case has been properly asked for, and then leaves it to the Court of Appeals to unravel from a long opinion the findings of the Judge and his opinion thereon. It is desirable that the opinion of the learned County Judge should accompany the stated case, but the stated case should embody in concise and precise terms his findings. As might be expected, the departure from good practice resulted in some unnecessary discussion before this Court.
From the papers sent to us it appears that the Tobacco Co. is engaged in manufacturing and processing tobacco. This manufacturing business is carried on in a warehouse or factory on the east side of St. Clair St. in Chatham; all its plant, equipment and executive offices are located in a building thereon. The result of the manufacturing process is that the tobacco is prepared for sale by being placed in hogsheads in which it is stored until sold. For the purpose of storage the Tobacco Co. has procured premises on the north side of Patterson Ave. and has also leased other premises on the south side of Spencer Ave., in the Hayes Wheel and Forgings Co., the owner of these premises, and which charges a storage rate of 121%c per month for every hogshead stored. These two premises are quite remote from the St. Clair St. factory.
The City of Chatham seeks to impose an assessment upon the Tobacco Co. under s. 8 with respect to these two subsidiary parcels of land, which, it is conceded, are used entirely for storage purposes.
Section 8 of the Assessment Act provides that every person occupying or using land "‘for the purpose of any business mentioned or described in this section’’ shall be assessed for a sum to be called business assessment. Subsection (e) provides the assessment of every person ‘‘carrying on the business of a manufacturer’’ for a sum equal to 60% of the assessed value.
The learned County Court Judge has held that in these two storage warehouses the Tobacco Co. is not carrying on the business of a manufacturer. These premises are used solely for the purpose of storing goods already manufactured in the St. Clair St. premises where the manufacturer is assessed in respect of the manufacturing business carried on by it.
The decision of the Supreme Court in Loblaw Groceterias Co. v. Toronto, [1936] 3 D.L.R. 346, is conclusive upon this point.
It is said that if the goods were stored until sold in the building on St. Clair St. the company could not escape assessment upon these premises, and that this shows they cannot escape assessment for business merely because they store the goods elsewhere. This may be so, but it cannot aid in the solution of the problem here presented.
It is also said that an assessment might well have been imposed equal to 5% of the assessed value under the latter clause of s. (k). The Loblaw case shows that our jurisdiction is confined to answering the questions properly submitted under the stated case. The stated case here asks only the one question, and with that alone have we anything to do.
The question submitted by the stated case is therefore answered in the affirmative, and the City of Chatham will be ordered to pay to the Tobacco Co. the costs of this appeal.
Judgment accordingly.