MACF'ARLANE, J.—This is a Motion for a Writ of Certiorari to remove into this Court the decision of the Board of Referees, appointed by the Minister of National Revenue, pursuant to the provisions of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, being Chapter 32 of the Statutes of Canada 1940, whereby the said Board purported to ascertain the standard profits of Nanaimo Community Hotel Limited pursuant to the said Act, which said decision bears date the 15th day of May, 1948, with the purpose in view of quashing the said Order.
Counsel for the Board raises the preliminary objection that there is no jurisdiction in this Court to deal with the decision of the Board and refers to Sections 65 to 67 of the Income War Tax Act made applicable by Section 14 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, "‘to matters arising under the provisions of this Act to the same extent and as fully and effectively as they (Sections 40 to 87), both inclusive) apply under the provisions of the Income War Tax Act’’.
The Board of Referees is appointed pursuant to Section 13 of the said Excess Profits Tax Act. The proceedings in respect of which the complaint herein is made were those envisaged by Section 5 of the said Act. The complaint is that the proceedings were taken before an incomplete Board and without due hearing of the representations of the Hotel Company. Following the alleged decision, which the applicant now asks this Court to quash, an assessment was made and from that assessment Notice of Appeal was filed. When the application was made the Board, according to the material filed, was sitting in Vancouver, British Columbia.
Section 66 of the Income War Tax Act reads in part as follows :—
1’66. Subject to the provisions of this Act the Exchequer Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine all questions that may arise in connection with any assessment made under this Act . . .”
Mr. Cunliffe argues that that section presupposes that an assessment has been made, and that as I understand him, the words "in connection with’’ mean "‘Consequent upon’’. I do not think that is the correct construction to be put upon these words. One of the very generally accepted meanings of "‘con- nection ‘‘is"’ relation between things one of which is bound up with or involved in another’’; or again ‘‘having to do with’’. The words include matters occurring prior to as well as subsequent to or consequent upon so long as they are related to the principal thing. The phrase ‘‘having to do with’’ perhaps gives as good a suggestion of the meaning as could be had.
I think Section 66 is sufficient to oust the jurisdiction of this Court to deal with a decision on which an assessment is subsequently made.
It is not necessary, therefore, for me to deal with the other phases of the very interesting and instructive argument presented on behalf of the Motion.
The Motion must be dismissed with costs.