Source: http://ctdj.ca/en/jurisprudence/manitoba-re-the-queen-in-right-of-and-air-canada-86-d-l-r-3d-631/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 10:30:52+00:00

Document:
Freedman, C.J.M., Monnin and Matas, JJ.A.
January 19 and February 16, 1978.
R. G. Carbert, D. D. Blevins and M. B. Nepon, for appellant.
H.B. Monk, Q.C., and G. E. myatt, for respondent.
… the airspace above the Province of Manitoba is not “within” the Province and that the Province has no legal right to assess or levy a tax under the Act in respect of aircraft, aircraft engines and parts consumed, and services, meals and liquor consumed or supplied to aircraft while in the airspace over the Prov­ ince of Manitoba.
Air Canada appealed a decision of the Minister of Finance by which he confirmed an amended assessment made pursuant to the Retail Sales Tax Act, R.S.M. 1970, c. R150 [formerly Revenue Tax Act, renamed by 1974, c. 57, s. 1], requiring Air Canada to pay re­ tail sales tax, penalties and interest totalling $1,375,387 for the pe­ riod of July 1, 1971 to June 30, 1974.
3(14) For the purposes of this section, aircraft and repair parts therefor that have not been delivered to the normal place of business or residence of the pur­ chaser thereof prior to the first day of May, 1972, shall be deemed to have been purchased on or after the first day of May, 1972.
minister, operated both within and without the province for the purposes of trade, the minister may estimate the proportion that the number of miles the aircraft is operated in Manitoba bears to the total number of miles the aircraft is operated and may, for the purposes of this Act, fix the value of the aircraft and the repair parts and services therefor, as that part of the value thereof that bears the same proportion to the total value thereof as the proportion esti­ mated above; and tax is payable on that part of the value of the aircraft and the repair parts and services therefor so fixed.
however, decisive of the question of taxability of aircraft using the ..­ airspace over the Province of Manitoba.
No Province has the right to make laws which are operative out­ side of its territory. A Province can only tax within its jurisdiction and not without.
The validity of the Act is not challenged. It is a direct tax intra vires of the Province of Manitoba: see Cairns Construction Ltd. v. Government of Saskatchewan (1960), 24 D.L.R. (2d) 1,  S.C.R.
619, 35 W.W.R. 241. .
At the hearing before us counsel for the Province of Manitoba abandoned all claims to any tax on liquor sold and meals supplied to passengers on aircraft flying into or out of the Province of Mani­ toba.
The gist of the question is, does Manitoba have legislative au­ thority over the airspace above it in order to levy a tax in connec­ tion with the operation of aircraft within such airspace whether the aircraft lands in Manitoba or travels above Manitoba without ever landing? The implications of this question are of grave conse­ quence, since if Manitoba is found to have jurisdiction over its airs­ pace, so would have all the other Canadian Provinces over theirs, and national air-carriers and other carriers could some day be faced with multifarious assessments for the same aircraft in vari­ ous Provinces.
The amended assessment was made in relation to the consump­ tion of all aircraft of Air Canada which either landed in Manitoba or overflew th Province without landing in Manitoba. Air Canada has a fleet of some 125 aircraft. During the period in question, only 25 of them ever came into Manitoba, one of which, valued at $25,883,682, for one appearance on Manitoba soil attracted a tax at the rate of 5%, namely, $129,418. Recent purchases of large aircraft are in the neighbourhood of $50,000,000 each. One shudders at the amount of retail sales tax involved.
After a lengthy study of the historical background, Morse, J., concluded that, prior to the entry of Manitoba into Confederation, if there were proprietary interest in the airspace it belonged to the British Crown and that since Confederation no one, either the Brit­ ish Crown, the Federal Crown, or the Hudson’s Bay Company, has transferred to Manitoba jurisdiction in the airspace above it. I ac­ cept the soundness of that reasoning and the historical background set forth in th€ reasons of Morse, J., but I would rather rest the case on the basis that air and airspace are not the subject of owner­ ship by anyone, either State or individual, but fall in the category of res onmium communis. Air or airspace is incapable of delinea­ tion or demarcation. Where does it start and where does it end? Does it start at one inch above ground level and end at a yet un­ known stratosphere? No one has yet devised any scientific method to define airspace, to contain it within boundar ies and to delineate it sufficiently for proper identification so that ownership can be firmly established if questioned.
Counsel for the Province of Manitoba, both in the lower Court and in this Court, relied on the maxim cujus est solum ejus est us­ que ad coelum et ad infernos, which may be translated, though in­ adequately, by “ownership of the soil carries with it ownership of what is above and below it”. The Latin phrase, much more pictur­ esque than the English translation, speaks of “up to heaven and down to hell”. In support of this claim, counsel for the Province of Manitoba relied on the approval of the maxim by Newcombe, J., in Re Aerial Navigation,  1 D.L.R. 13 at p. 36,  S.C.R. 663 at p. 701. First it is to be noted that of the seven Supreme Court Judges who heard that case, five, including Newcombe, J., gave reasons. Some of his colleagues agreed with portions of his reasons, but no one specifically agreed with his reference to and approval of the maxim. The decision of the Supreme Court was reversed by the Privy Council [ 1 D.L.R. 58,  A.C. 54,  3 W.W.R. 625]. At that level it was argued by counsel for the Attorney-Gen­ eral of Canada that the maxim applied. Lord Justice Sankey, who wrote the speech for the Privy Council, did not make any reference to the maxim. I consider that I am not bound by the reasons of Newcombe, J., though I must treat them with respect, and I am not bound by his acceptance of the maxim as a sound principle of law.
– such words are far from being words of approval.
It is in relation to this question that the Latin tag “usque ad coelum et ad infernos” has been introduced and given a prominent place in argument.
Stair’s Institutions ii.7.7). In the form of a maxim it only has authority at com- ‘-‘ mon law insofar as it has been adopted by decisions, or equivalent authority.
There are a number of examples of its use in judgments of the 19th century, by which time mineral values had drawn attention to downwards extent as well as, or more than, extent upwards. But its use, whether with reference to mineral rights, or trespass in the airspace by projections, animals or wires, is imprecise and it is mainly serviceable as dispensing with analysis (cf Pickering v Rudd, Ellis v Loftus Iron Co. (1874) LR 10 CP 10, [1874-80] All ER Rep 232). In none of these cases is there an authoritative pronouncement that “land” means the whole of the space from the centre of the earth to the heavens: so sweeping, unscientific and unpractical a doctrine is unlikely to appeal to the common law mind. At most the maxim is used as a statement, imprecise enough, of the extent of the rights, prima facie, of owners of land: Bowen LJ was concerned with these rights when, in a case dealing with rights of support, he said: “Prima facie the owner of the land has everything under the sky down to the centre of the earth … ” (Poutney v Clayton (1883) 11 QED 820 at 838, [1881-85] All ER Rep 280 at 284).
I can find no support in authority for the view that a landowner’s rights in the air space above his property extend to an unlimited height. In Wandsworth Board of Works v United Telephone Co (1884) 13 QED 904 Bowen LJ described the maxim, usque ad coelum, as a fanciful phrase, to which I would add that if applied literally it is a fanciful notion leading to the absurdity of a trespass at common law being committed by a satellite every time it passes over a subur­ ban garden. The academic writers speak with one voice in rejecting the uncriti­ cal and literal application of the maxim: see, by way of example only, Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort, Salmond on Tort, Shawcross and Beaumont on Air Law, McNair on the Law of the Air, and Halsbury’s Laws of England. I accept their collective approach as correct. The problem is to balance the rights of an owner to enjoy the use of his land against the rights of the general public to take ad­ vantage of all that science now offers in the use of air space. This balance is in my judgment best struck in our present society by restricting the rights of an owner in the air space above his land to such height as is necessary for the ordi­ nary use and enjoyment of his land and the structures on it, and declaring that above that height he has no greater rights in the air space than any other member of the public.
The maxim cannot go further than direct the owner or occupier of land in his enjoyment of the land and also to prevent anyone else from acquiring any title or exclusive right to the space above such land so as to limit a person to whatever proper use he can make of his land. Further than that it cannot go. Academic writers and modern jurisprudence reject its literal application. So must I in this age of jet aircrafts, satellites, supersonic concordes, orbital travel and visits to the moon. The sooner the maxim is laid to rest, the better it will be.
So far as the power to impose taxation is concerned (as distinct from the power to deal with matters like air pollution, hunting of game birds, etc.), Manitoba has no property right or legislative ju­ risdiction in relation to airspace over its territory, either at com­ mon law or under any other law, and the right of the Province to levy taxes does not extend beyond its property rights within the Province. Therefore, it cannot tax that which is in the airspace above it.
Having reached that conclusion, I need not deal with the alleged errors in the computation of the tax and the assessment of the Minister of Finance and whether value means “fair value” or “depreciated value” of the aircraft and parts. I must indicate to counsel for the Crown, with respect, that his argument to the effect that there is no right of appeal in the matter of determination of value by the Minister under s. 4(6), is not sound. Under s. 16(1) and 16(2), the Minister may make an estimate of the amount of tax col­ lected by the vendor or may estimate the fair value of the tax. Sec­ tion 19(1) unequivocally sets out that if a person is dissatisfied with the decision of the Minister under s. 18, he may appeal to the Court. A decision of the Minister under s. 18 refers back to a dis­ pute concerning the amount of an estimate made either under s. 16 or to an assessment made under s. 17. Once an appeal is launched, the whole matter is up for a review, and to argue that the Court is powerless to look behind the assessment and into the method or methods used by the Minister or his officers to arrive at the calcula­ tion of assessment, is to negate the value and the right of appeal so clearly granted by statute. The entire matter is subject to review and scrutiny. Therefore, the assessment of the various values and the method used to fix these values by the Minister or his staff can be looked into by the tribunal.
Even though the Air Canada timetable might not come within the definition of “books” in this section of Reg. Rl 50-Rl, there is no provision in the Act or Regu­ lations which purports to exclude publications such as the Air Canada timeta­ ble from the meaning of the word “books”, and the dictionary meaning of “book” includes “anything from which one may learn”. In my view, therefore, the Air Canada timetables are not subject to tax.
4(1) Notwithstanding section 3, no tax is payable under this Act in respect of the consumption of the following classes of tangible personal property· (s) Books, newS]Japers, and periodical publications.
(k) timetables, Normally, in common usage, “books” would cover timetables. But the Minister is empowered to make regulations describing the tangi­ ble personal property mentioned in ss. 4 and 5 or clarifying the in­ terpretation of those sections.
I am of the view that in stating that a timetable is not a book for tax purposes, he has not gone beyond his powers of description. I note that throughout the Regulations various items are listed and are said “to mean” or “to include” and even “does not include”. There is a scheme or a pattern in this regulation which makes use of such expressions and I am unable to find error in the method fol­ lowed. The Minister has the right to describe and in describing he has the right to state that which is not a book for purposes of taxes and he has stated that a timetable, not being a book, is not exempt.
13(4) From and after the date on which, under this Act or the regulations, any debt due to the government under this Act is to be paid or remitted.
the debt bears interest at a rate or rates prescribed in the regulations, but where no rate or rates have been prescribed in the regulations, the debt bears interest at % of 1% for each fuII month after the date that the debt was due and payable; and the interest accrued on any such debt from time to time is a debt due to Her Majesty in right of Mamtoba, and is recoverable as such in a court of competent jurisdiction.
the minister shall repay to that person the amount wrongly paid or the amount of the excess if application for refund has been made within two years of the date the overpayment was received.
There are presently under advisement by this Court three cases under the same Act. In two of these cases counsel for the Crown have taken a firm stand that the Crown cannot be called upon to pay interest unles specifically told to do so by statute and that, in the instant case, the statute does not order it to pay interest on the amount of overpayment. A review of the entire situation must, therefore, be made.
On May 5, 1975, Air Canada paid the above sum under protest with notice of its intent to appeal the assessment, which it did on June 5, 1975.
responded to the claim for interest that he could find no section au- 6 thorizing the Province of Manitoba to remit interest in connection o with sums obtained via the Retail Sales Tax Act. Morse, J., ac- N cepted this view.
On March 9, 1977, judgment was entered. On April 1, 1977, the c!
$1,432,181. Thus no interest has been allowed on the sums improp- erly obtained by way of tax between May 5, 1975 and the date of ..­ judgment, March 9, 1977. Since March 9, 1977, the judgment bears ordinary Court interest on the judgment.
In support of his contention on the subject of interest, counsel for the Province refers to three cases. The first of them is The King v. Roger Miller & Sons Ltd.,  2 D.L.R. 751,  S.C.R. 293.
The only other amount in question here is the item of $10,937.71 allowed by the learned trial Judge to the respondents for interest on moneys not paid to the respondents at the time stipulated in the contract. The total sum claimed by the respondents for interest was $28,700.16, of which $17,762.45 was allowed and paid by the appellant, voluntarily as appellant claims.
It was argued that the interest claimed should be treated as part of the cost of the work, and therefore is payable under the terms of the contract, but this argument seems quite unsound. It is a mere case of moneys becoming due to respondents at certain times and being withheld beyond the due dates, in which case the Crown is not liable to pay interest during default except under special circumstances such as the existence of statutory provision or contrac­ tual obligation.
The second case relied upon is Hochelaga Shipping & Towing Co. Ltd. v. The King,  S.C.R. 138. The action, brought by way of petition of right, was to recover damages against the Crown for the loss of the suppliant’s tow-boat. Rinfret, J., speaking for the Court, stated that the Crown is not liable to pay interest unless the statute or the contract provided for it. It is to be noted it dealt with damages payable by the Crown and not reimbursement of taxes improperly obtained.
The third case relied upon is The King and Royal Bank of Can­ ada v. Racette,  S.C.R. 28, which relied upon Hochelaga Ship­ ping & Towing Co. Ltd. v. The King, supra, and held that interest at the rate of 51h% per annum represented by the coupons attached to the mislaid or lost war loan bonds could not be recovered from the Crown. A further ground for this decision was that the coupons being bearer coupons may have been cashed by anyone who found them and that the Crown should not be called upon to pay interest on the lost coupons, as it might be called upon to pay twice for the same coupons.
All these cases were decided prior to the Proceedings Against the Crown Act, first enacted in Manitoba in 1951 (Man.), c. 13, now R.S.M. 1970, c. P140. The 1951 statute, as a reference in the current legislation still indicates, was copied in large part from the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947 (U.K.), c. 44, first enacted by the Mother of Parliament in 1947. All corresponding provincial statutes, as well as the federal one, have their origin in this 1947 statute.
Under the general rule of common law no proceeding, civil or criminal, was maintainable against the Sovereign in person for it was said that the Courts, being the King’s own Courts, could have no jurisdiction over him. By virtue of a legal fiction – namely, that the King could do no wrong – the Crown, either in the right of the Mother of Parliament, or in the right of Canada, or in the right of a Province, enjoyed all the immunities and privileges of the Sover­ eign. The only method available to obtain regress against the Crown in the Courts was through a petition-of-right with leave of the Crown. All this was substantially and remarkably changed by the Proceedings Against the Crown Act, supra.
By virtue of ss. 4 and 5 there now exists a right to sue without a fiat of the Crown. The Crown is liable in tort for the acts of its officers or agents for acts of officers performing duties legally re­ quired, and the law as to indemnity and contribution applies to the Crown.
17(1) Subject to this Act, in proceedings against the Crown the rights of the parties are as nearly as possible the same as in a suit between person and per­ son; and the court may make any order, including an order as to costs, that it may make in proceedings between persons, and may otherwise give such ap­ propriate relief as the case may require.
Interest on debts, dwrruiges and costs.
24(1) Section seventeen of the Judgments Act, 1838 (which provides that a judgment debt shall carry interest) shall apply to judgment debts due from or to the Crown.
(2) Where any costs are awarded to or against the Crown in the High Court, interest shall be payable upon those costs unless the court otherwise orders, () and any interest so payable shall be at the same rate as that at which interest is payable upon judgment debts due from or to the Crown.
Section three of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934 (which empowers courts of record to award interest on debts and damages) N shall apply to judgments given in proceedings by and against the Crown.
In general, the Crown is in the same position as a subject as regards inte rest ..­ on debts and damages, and on judgment debts and costs.
In Manitoba, since 1951, the Crown is in the same situation as any citizen of the realm except with respect to injunctions, specific performance or orders for recovery of land, such exceptions being dealt with by ss. 15, 17(2), 17(3) and (4) of the Act and they have no application in this case.
In my view, the pronouncements of the Supreme Court in The King v. Roger Miller & Sons Ltd., supra; Hochelaga Shipping & Towing Co. Ltd. v. The King supra, and The King and Royal Bank of Canada v. Racette, supra, with respect to interest no longer have any application and I do not consider myself bound by them, as the law has been substantially changed by statute.
This Court in Chambers v. Leech,  4 W.W.R. 568, has care­ fully reviewed the legislation and our rules pertaining to interest and the principle upon which interest is granted. Interest in that case was allowed from the date of commencement of the action.
In Prince Albert Pulp Co. Ltd. et al. v. Foundation Co. of Canada Ltd. (1976), 68 D.L.R. (3d) 283,  1 S.C.R. 200,  4 W.W.R.
In summary, on the particular facts of this case, in my opinion foundation has established the improper withholding by P & W Pulpmills of payment of a just debt, and the circumstances make it fair and equitable that Foundation be compensated by the payment of interest. In my opinion the rates of interest applicable should be equivalent to the bank borrowing rates of Foundation over the period from November 1, 1968, to the date of the judgment of this Court. Such interest should be payable for that period.
In A1’1’Utx Potash Ltd. et al. v. Government of Saskatchewan (1976), 71 D.L.R. (3d) 1,  2 S.C.R. 576,  6 W.W.R. 61, Dickson, J., in delivering the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, wherein the constitutional validity of s. 5(7) of the Proceedings against the Crown Act was challenged, expressed the view that the Supreme Court had the discretion – which it refused to exercise in that case – to make an order directing the Province of Saskatchewan to hold, as a stakeholder, such sums as were paid to the Government by the various appellants pursuant to the im­ pugned legislation, namely, the Saskatchewan Mineral Taxation Act, R.S.S. 1965, c. 64 [am. 1973-74, c. 65], but with the right to the Province to use the sums in the interim and with the obligation to repay the said sums with interest in the event that the legislation were ultimately declared to be ultra vires of the Legislature of Saskatchewan. The yearly assessment under the Mineral Taxation Act could total more than $120,000,000. Interest on such amount would, therefore, be substantial. Dickson, J ., did not hesitate, notwithstanding the aforesaid prior pronouncements of the Su­ preme Court, to state that theamount would bear interest.
In my opinion the appellant is entitled to judgment against the Government for the recovery of the sums paid by way of mineral income tax and royalty surcharge , with interest thereon from the respective dates of payment up to the date of repayment.
This decision goes further than Prince Albert Pulp Co. Ltd. v. Foundation Co. of Canada Ltd., supra, where the same learned Judge ordered payment of interest to the date of judgment of the Supreme Court and not to the date of repayment as in the latter case.
A careful review, section by section, of the Saskatchewan Oil and Gas conservation, Stabilization and Development Act, 1973, discloses no specific section imposing a liability upon the Saskat­ chewan Crown in the event of overpayment or illegal payment of tax, to pay interest on the amount of the refund. Thus, in that re­ spect, the Saskatchewan statute is similar to the Manitoba ReW:il Sales Tax Act.
amount of the assessment at 9% per annum with, in addition, pen- 6 alties at 5%. In the interval between the date of payment into the o Government coffers and the repayment by the Government, the N Government has had the use of $1.5 million for nearly three years, which moneys, I am certain, were soundly invested by the Province c! or used for provincial purposes. It would be grossly unfair, inequi- J table and a serious act of unjust enrichment if the Province were 00 allowed to collect taxes, charge interest and penalties and, later on, when ordered to repay the tax illegally collected, could then hide ..­ behind a legal fiction and say, since the King can do no wrong, we, the Province, are not bound to pay interest on these sums which we have obtained from you, Mr. Taxpayer, unless a specific section in the Act directs us to do so. In an age when the Crown is visibly en­ gaging in commerce, the theory that the King can do no wrong is an anachronism. Such an antiquated principle should not be called back to work in favour of the taxing authority.
What is good for the tax collector, should be good for the tax­ payer. If the tax collector can call for and obtain interest, elemen­ tary fairness asks that it reimburse the taxpayer for moneys ille­ gally collected, together with interest at the same rate as it collected, at least until the date of judgment.
In the Prince Albert case, supra, Martland, J., ordered interest to be paid at bank prime rate. Mr. Monk, counsel for Air Canada, has requested interest at the rate of 10%. I am prepared to allow it at 9%, namely, the same rate charged by the Province, from the date of payment up to the date of judgment; thereafter the amount of judgment will bear interest at the usual rate.
The assessment is varied to include tax on the timetables; the judgment is varied to include interest as aforesaid; otherwise the appeal is dismissed with costs in this Court.
D. D. Blevins, for appellant.
The judgment of Court was delivered by MONNIN, J.A.:-Reasons for judgment were released in this mat­ ter on Thursday, January 19, 1978. In those reasons I dealt with the matter of tax on timetables delivered free of charge by Air Canada to its clients in Manitoba and also to certain competing airlines and large scale customers. I dealt with the matter from pp. 638-9, ante, [printed in italics] in my reasons for judgment.
On the same date, the Supreme Court of Canada released its rea­ sons for judgment in Simpsons-Sears Ltd. v. Provincial Secretary of New Brunswick et al. [now reported 82 D.L.R. (3d) 321, 20 N.B.R. (2d) 478]. Those reasons came to my attention during the last week of January, whereupon I immediately had a copy of them forwarded to both counsel for Air Canada and counsel for the Province of Manitoba, and I also requested the Registrar of the Court not to enter the certificate of decision if it were presented to him, until the matter could be looked into further.
The applicability of the decision of the Supreme Court to the in­ stant case was argued by both counsel on Monday, February 13th, in the presence and at the request of the same panel who originally heard the appeal last October.
The catalogues in this case are not finally consumed by the appellant who distributes them for the benefit of such of the recipients as make retail pur­ chases from them. The distribution merely places the catalogues in the hands of potential customers for use by them in making purchases within the Prov­ ince, but it is the purchase of the goods and not the distribution or receipt of the catalogues which attracts the tax.
(s) Books, newspapers, and periodical publications.
Thus timetables, by virtue of the Manitoba Act and its regula­ tions, are not books and, therefore, are taxable, whereas a “sales catalogue” is included in the definition of books in s. 1(3)(b) of the Regulations and does not attract tax.
Under the New Brunswick legislation no tax is payable in re­ spect of the consumption of a book, but a book does not include a catalogue or a timetable. It is in view of this legislation that Rit­ chie, J., ruled that the catalogues were not finally consumed by Simpsons-Sears who distributed them for the benefit of such of the recipients who made retail purchases from them.
The same reasoning is bound to apply to the Manitoba legisla­ tion, which I find very similar in words and in context, and I con­ clude that Air Canada timetables are not finally consumed by Air Canada, who distribute them to the public for the benefit of such of those who make use of them to purchase their tickets.
I am unable to find any valid distinction on this point between the Manitoba and New Brunswick legislation. I am bound by the Supreme Court decision in Simpsons-Sears Ltd., supra, and must accordingly conclude that the timetables were not consumed by Air Canada and, therefore, attract no tax.
My prior reasons, from p. 638, starting with the words “In his as­ sessment, the Minister of Finance” up to p. 639, ending with “that a timetable, not being a book, is not exempt”, are hereby with­ drawn and the aforesaid comments are substituted in their stead.
Otherwise the reasons for judgment delivered on January 19, 1978, are reaffirmed as of that date and counsel may take out the appropriate certificate of decision from the Registrar of this Court. In view of the circumstances which have led to this limited re­hearing, there shall be no costs to anyone on this rehearing.
Appeal allowed in part; judgment varied.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.