IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET {MT-3) 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 2.0 
 
 1.25 iu 
 
 1.8 
 
 1.6 
 
 150mm 
 
 ^m 
 
 m 
 
 6> 
 
 7 
 
 ^; 
 
 
 /. 
 
 >4PPLIED_J IIS/MGE . Inc 
 
 ^s: 1653 East Main Street 
 
 ,^='- Rochester, NY 14609 USA 
 
 ,^=r^E Phone: 716/482-0300 
 
 .^='.^^ Fax: 716/288-5989 
 
 © 1993, Applied Image, Inc., All Rights Reserved 
 
 |\ 
 
 s\^ 
 
 a> 
 
 -^ 
 
 '% 
 
 :\ 
 
 
 
A 
 
 CIHM 
 Microfiche 
 Series 
 ({Monographs) 
 
 ICIMH 
 
 Collection de 
 microfiches 
 (monographies) 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical l\/licroreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
 \^ 
 
 I ^^\J 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes / Notes techniques et bibliographiques 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the tiest original 
 copy available for filming. Features of this copy which 
 may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any 
 of the images in the reproduction, or which may 
 significantly change the usual method of filming, are 
 checked below. 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 D 
 
 I I Covers damaged/ 
 
 Couverture endommag^ 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restauree et/ou pellicula 
 
 n 
 
 □ Cover title missing/ 
 Le titre de couvertu 
 
 n 
 
 n 
 
 n 
 
 n 
 
 couverture manque 
 
 Coloured maps/ 
 
 Caites giographiques en couleur 
 
 Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Relie avec d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interio margin/ 
 La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distorsion le long de la marge interieure 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may appear 
 within the text. Whenever possible, these have 
 been omitted from filming/ 
 II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouttes 
 lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, 
 mais, lorsque cela etait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas ete filmees. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires supplementaires: 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est fiime au taux de reduction mdique ci-dessous. 
 
 10X ux 18X 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il 
 lui a eti possible de se procure:-. Les details de cet 
 exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du point de vue 
 bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image 
 reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification 
 dans la mithode normale de f ilmage sont indiqu^ 
 ci-dessous. 
 
 Coloured pages/ 
 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 □ Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommagtes 
 
 □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 Pages restaurees et/ou pellicultes 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 Pages decolorees, tachetees ou piquees 
 
 □ Pages detached/ 
 Pages detaches 
 
 0Showthrough/ 
 Transparence 
 
 □ Quality of print varies/ 
 Qualite inegale de I'impression 
 
 □ Continuous pagination/ 
 Pagination continue 
 
 □ Includes index(es)/ 
 Comprend un (des) index 
 
 Title on header taken from:/ 
 Le titre de I'en-tete provient: 
 
 □ Title page of issue 
 Page de titre de la 
 
 □ Caption of issue/ 
 Titre de depart de la 
 
 I I Masthead/ 
 
 livraison 
 
 livraison 
 
 Generique (periodiques) de la livraison 
 
 22X 
 
 26X 
 
 30X 
 
 y 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 20X 
 
 24 X 
 
 28X 
 
 22X 
 
cet 
 
 de vue 
 !« 
 ition 
 
 The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 IMational Library of Canada 
 
 The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 cf the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol — ^- (meaning "CON- 
 TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 L'exemplaire filmd fut reproduit grfice A la 
 g6n6rosit6 de: 
 
 Bibliothdque nationale du Canada 
 
 Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettetd de l'exemplaire film6, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprimde sont filmds en commengant 
 par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second 
 plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 originaux sont filmds en commen^ant par la 
 premidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 <a dernidre page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la 
 dernidre image de cheque microfiche, seion le 
 cas: le symbols — ^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le 
 symbols V signifie "FIN". 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc.. peuvent dtre 
 filmSs d des taux de reduction diffdrents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre 
 reproduit on un seul clich6, il est film* d partir 
 de I'angle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la mdthode. 
 
 n 
 
 32 X 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
IN RE INCOME TAX 
 
 •f 
 
 Ii tli8 Miter Df the Appeal from tie Coort of ReTisiJo of 
 the CorporatioD of tlie Cit; of Ottawa 
 
 -TO THE- 
 
 f ounf^ gourf §u6gc. 
 
 WILLIAM CAMPBELL, 
 
 AND 
 
 Appellant. 
 
 THE C^RPOEATION OF THE CITY 
 OF OTTAWA, 
 
 Heapondmts. 
 
 JUDGMENT. 
 
 Cmr OP Ottawa, 22nd Deoembbb, 1883. 
 
NOTE 
 
 In preparing the municipal asgessment roll for the 3'ear 1384 
 the Assessors of the Corporation of the City of Ottawa, placed 
 thereon the names of the members of the Dominion Civil Ser- 
 vice, employed at Ottawa, as liable to income tax on their official 
 salaries, for municipal purposes. 
 
 This was in direct opposition to the unanimous judgment of 
 the Court of Appeal— the highest judicial tribunal of the Pro- 
 vince of Ontario-rendered in the year 1878, in the case of 
 Lefprohon vs. tke Corporation of the City of Ottawa^ by which it 
 was decided, that such official salaries are not so taxable, and 
 that the Corporation has no legal right or power to levy such in- 
 come tax thei-eon, and from which judgment the Corporation did 
 not appeal, but on the contrary, have acquiesced therein, by ab- 
 staining, since the date thereof, from assessing these official salaries, 
 until the present year as above stated. 
 
 A meeting of the members of the Civil Service was there- 
 fore held, and a committee was appointed to adopt the necessary 
 measures to resist, by all legal means, the levying of such income 
 t^, with power to employ counsel, and to assess the salaries of the 
 officers of the Civil Service, to meet any expense that mieht 
 thereby be incurred. ^ 
 
 , , S^'l"^®^ ^38 retained, and protests against the aBsessment, on 
 behalf of every member of the Civil Service so assessed, were 
 dulv fyled with the Assessment Commissioner, in compliance 
 with the provisions of the Ontario Assessment Act, and on the 
 13th JNovember, 1883, the same were heard before the Court of 
 Jievtston, composed of three members of the City Council, who 
 unanimously rejected the appeals, and maintained the assessment, 
 /^l?^ *^^^ decision an appeal was had to the County Court 
 Judge (Mr. Justice Boss) as provided by the Assessment Act. The 
 case of William Campbell, which happened to be first on the 
 roll, was selected, and it was agreed by counsel on both sides, 
 that the decision in this case should govern all the other appeals 
 — the facts and circumstances being identical. 
 
 On the 22nd December, 1883, Judge Ross delivered the 
 following comprehensive, carefully prepared, and exhaustive 
 judgment, maintaining Mr. Campbell's appeal, and declaring, in 
 effect, that the official salaries of the employees of the Dominion 
 Government are not liable to municipal taxation. 
 
 By the Assessment Act, the decision of the County Court 
 Judge is made iinal, and no appeal can be taken therefrom. 
 
JUDGMENT. 
 
 In Hf mottfr of tftf ^pptni from tir (ftnnrt of Hrpisiffit 
 af t*f Citi) 0f miom. 
 
 William Campbell, 
 
 AND 
 
 Appellant, 
 
 The Corporation of the Crir of 
 Ottawa et al. 
 
 Respondents. 
 
 This was an Appeal from the Court of Revision of the City 
 of Ottawa, dismissing the Appellapfs complaint in regard to the 
 assessment of his salary in the year 1883. 
 
 Mr. QoRMDLLY for the Appellant. 
 
 Mr. McTavish for the Respondents. 
 
 The following facts were admitted : That the Appellant 
 resides in the City of Ottawa, and has his office there ; that he is 
 an officer of the Dominion Government ; that the assessment 
 complained of ,s on income only-such income being his 
 official salary, p.^id to him as such officer by Her Majesty, repre- 
 sented by the Government of the Dominion of Canada ; and that 
 he has no income other than his said official salary. 
 
 Mr. Gormully argned that the point has been already decided 
 and he cited— ' 
 
 L^ohon vs. Ottawa 2 Ont. App. 522, and also that on the 
 ground that T myself, sitting to hear appeals from the Court of 
 Revision of the City of Ottawa, held some years ago, that the 
 salary of an officer of the Dominion Government was exe.npt 
 from taxation by the Municipality of Ottawa, and he contended 
 that I am bound by either, and still more by both the said 
 judgments. 
 
 Mr. McTavish for the Respondents argued that I was at 
 hberty, notwithstanding both judgments, to decide now that the 
 
:: 
 
 
 income of an employee in the Civil Service of the Dominion, 
 denved from his appointment by the Dominion Government is 
 assessable by the Municipality under the laws in force in Ontario. 
 He said that early in the year 1883, the City Council was advised 
 that such income was liable to be assessed, tiiat the Council had 
 unanimously resolved that official incomes of all Do.ninion officers 
 at Ottawa should be assessed for the year 1883, and had instructed 
 the Assessment Commissioner to that effect; and that it was the 
 intention of the Council that this appeal should be a test case, 
 with the view to obtain the opinion of the Judicial Committee of 
 the Privy Council in England on the question whether under the 
 laws of Ontario a tax can be imposed by the Municipality on the 
 official salary of the Appellant as an officer of the Dominion 
 Government. He therefore pressed me that I ought to hold that 
 the Appellant's salary was subject to be taxed. 
 
 This appeal then, raises an important question between the 
 parties, and in some respects it is a question— in Ottawa at least— 
 of general importance, inasmuch as according to Mr. McTavish's 
 estimate, the exemption from assessment of the incomes of 
 Dominion officials causes to Ottawa an annual loss of taxes to the 
 extent of $15,000. Now, the point is whetlier the income-the 
 official salary— of the Appellant, is exempt from or subject to 
 assessment or taxation by the Corporation of the City of O^^-awa 
 I do not intend to go into the consideration of the ton- 
 stitutional question whether the Ontario Legislature 
 has the power to impose, or autliorize a Municipal Cor- 
 poration to impose, a tax upon the income of Dominion officers; 
 nor do I propose to attempt to determine what is the true oou'. 
 structiorj of the Statutes bearing upon the subject, because I am 
 of opinion that this appeal is clearly and plainly governed by the 
 ease of 
 
 Leprohon vs. Ottawa, 2 Ont App. 622. 
 When that case was argued before the Court of Queen's Bench— 
 40 U. C. R. 47— it was argued on the part of the Defendants 
 tjiat even assuming that the incomes of officers of the Dominion 
 CJovernment were exempt from taxation— which, however, Was 
 denied, yet that Mr. Leprohon was an officer of the House of Com- 
 mons of Canada, and not of the Dominioii 'Government, and 
 
therefore hie salary was not exempt. Although the Jndgee of 
 the Court of Queen's Bench differed in their opinions upon the 
 main point in that case, all agreed that an officer of the IIouBe 
 of CommonB is an officer of the Dominion Government. The 
 distinction thus endeavored to be drawn by the Defendants' 
 Counsel in the Court below was entirely abandoned when the 
 case came on to be argued before the Court of Appeal. 
 
 Spraoob, C, in delivering his judgment in that case said : 
 " We are informed by Counsel for both parties that it is not their 
 " wish that any distinction should be drawn between the position 
 " of the Plaintiff and that of all ordinary Civil Servants of the 
 " Dominion Government, but that this suit be taken as a test 
 " question, applying to all the officers of the Government of the 
 " Dominion." 
 
 Patterson, J. A., said: "The parties agree that the sole 
 " question to be tried is whether the Corporation of the City of 
 "Ottawa can legally assess and collect from an officer of the 
 " House of Commons of Canada a tax or assessment upon his 
 
 "income and the material facts are that the plaintiff lives in 
 
 " Ottawa and has his pkce of business there, and that the income 
 " in respect of which he is taxed is his salary as an officer of the 
 " House of Commons. The tax was imposed under the assumed 
 "authority of the Ontario Assessment Act, 32, Vic. Ch. 36, O." 
 
 The Court of Appeal, in that case, unanimously held — revers- 
 ing the judgment of the Queen's Bench - 40 U. C. R. 478, that 
 the Ontario Legislature has no power to impose a tax upon the 
 official income of an officer of the Dominion Government, or to 
 confer such a power upon the Municipalities. 
 
 All the material facts on issue in Leprohon vs. Ottawa are 
 identical with those in question in this appeal — except that Lepro- 
 hon was an officer deriving his salary from his appointment as an 
 officer of the House of Commons, while the present Appellant's 
 appointment was made directly by the Dominion Government, 
 which makes the judgment of the Court of Appeal stronger, if 
 anything, in favor of the Appellant. Leprohon vs. Ottawa is 
 therefore a direct and conclusive authority in this appeal. 
 
 As to the urgent appeal made to me that I was at liberty to 
 differ from the Judgment of the Court of Appeal in Leprohon 
 
vs. Ottawa, no authority was cited, or could be cited, for none 
 oxibt6 — in support of such a contention. The proposition was so 
 extraordinary, so monstrously absurd, that I could not, and did 
 not, bring myself to beliovo that the Defendants' counsel could 
 be serious in suggesting it. On what principle a Judge of an in- 
 ferior Court, no matter what his individual opinion might be, 
 could venture to differ from the unanimous judgment of a superior 
 tribunal— and that an appellate one — I confess my inability to 
 comprehend. Every Court is governed by its own decisions until 
 they are reversed or overruled by a superior Court. Although it 
 may be superfluous — considering how well settled the law is upon 
 the subject— I will refer to two or three authoritiee of the very 
 highest kind. 
 
 In Re HalleVs estate, 13 Ch. D. 696, 
 
 Jessel M. R. said : "First of all, what is the proper use of 
 " authorities ? This is almost elementary, but I am bound to 
 " state it because, as I will show presently, that use has not been 
 " made in the case on which I am going to comment. The only 
 " use of authorities, or decided cases, is the establishment of some 
 " principle which the judge can follow out in deciding the case 
 " before him. There is perhaps nothing more important than that 
 " great respect for the authority of decided cases which is shewn 
 " by our tribunals. Were it not for that our law would be in a most 
 '' distressing state of uncertainty ; and so strong has that been my 
 <' view, that where a Court has decided a principle, although 1 
 "myself do not concurin it, aii i although it has been the decision 
 " of co-ordinate jurisdiction, 1 have felt bound to follow it, when 
 " it is of respectable age, and has been used by lawyers as settling 
 " the law, leaving it to the appellate (yourt to say that the case is 
 " wrongly decided, if the appellate Court should so think." 
 
 In Attorney General vs Windsor, 8 H. L., 369. 
 
 Campbell, L. C, said : " That most learned and able Judge, 
 '' the present Master of the Rolls, points out a decision of the 
 t' House which he says he thinks clearly governs the present case, 
 " adding, ' the decisions of the House of Lords are binding upon 
 " me and upon all Courts, except itself.' I feel it my duty to say 
 " that I think this expression is incorrect. By the constitution 
 
" of this United Kingdom, the House of Lords is the Court of 
 " Appeal in the last resort, and itH decisions are authoritative and 
 "conclusive declarations of the existing state of the law and 
 " are binding upon itself when sitting judicially, as much as 
 " upon all inferior tribunals. The doctrine on which the judg- 
 " ment of the House is founded, must bo universally taken for 
 " law, and can only be altered by Act of Parliament." 
 
 In Beamish vs. Beamish^ G. H. L., 274, 
 Campbell, L. C, said : '* If it were competent to me, 1 
 " would now ask your Lordships to reconsider the doctrine laid 
 " down in the Queen vs. Mills, particularly as the Judges w ho 
 " were then consulted, complained of being hurried into giving 
 " an opinion without due time for deliberation, and the Members 
 " of this House who heard the argument, and voted on the ques- 
 "tion— 'that the judgment appealed against be reversed'— 
 " were equally divided ; so that the judgment which decided the 
 •' marriage by a Presbyterian clergyman of a man and woman, 
 " who both belonged to his religious persuasion, who both be- 
 " lieved that they were contracting lawful matrimony, who had 
 " lived together as husband and wife, and who had procreated 
 " children while so living together as husband and wife, to be a 
 " nullity, was only pronounced on the technical rule of your 
 "Lordships' House, that were u^»on a division, the numbers are 
 " equal, semper praesumitar pro negante.^' 
 
 " But it is my duty to say that your Lordships are bound by 
 " this decision as much as if it had been pronounced nemine 
 " dissentiente, and that the rule of law which your Lordships 
 " lay down as the ground of your judgment, sitting judicially, as 
 " the last and Supreme Court of Appeal for this Empire, must 
 " be taken for law till altered by an Act of Parliament, agreed to 
 " by the Commons and Crown as well as by your Lordships. 
 " The law laid down as your ratio decidendi, being clearly bind- 
 '' ing on all inferior tribunals, and on all the rest of the Queen's 
 " subjects, if it were not considered so equally binding on your 
 " Lordships this House would br arrogating to itself the right 
 " of altering the law, and legislating by its own separate authority." 
 
 Mr. Campbell's appeal must be allowed.