Canada: Aboriginal Law @ Gowlings - October 14, 2011

Waycobah First Nation v. Attorney General of Canada, 2011 FCA 191

By: Graham Ragan

Available at: http://www.canlii.org

Federal Court Appeal upholds CRA decision to deny tax remission order to First Nation

This was an appeal from a decision of the Federal Court, dismissing the Waycobah First Nation's application to review the decision of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA).  The Federal Court denied recommending remission of the First Nation's substantial tax debt.  Waycobah First Nation is a small impoverished community with significant infrastructure challenges.  The tax debt largely comprised the budget deficit and had impeded its ability to borrow funds cover infrastructure deficiencies. 

The substantial tax debt arose from the failure of the First Nation to collect harmonized sales tax (HST) from non-Aboriginal individuals who purchased gasoline and tobacco on reserve. This issue had originally proceeded through the courts with the First Nation losing at each level, including being denied leave to appeal by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2003. 

Following the court proceedings, the First Nation negotiated repayment of the outstanding amounts with CRA but was ultimately unable to comply.  While recognizing the extreme financial difficulties in its decision to not recommend remission, CRA also noted the non-compliance.  At the Federal Court, the First Nation's application was dismissed on the basis that it had not been demonstrated that CRA's decision was erroneous. 

The Court of Appeal dismissed the First Nation's appeal and upheld the lower court decision.   The Court held that the First Nation did not succeed in demonstrating CRA's exercise of discretion was unreasonable.  This was a difficult task as the discretion to grant a remission is broad, policy-based and is exercisable within a decision-making context that may result in the grant of extraordinary relief.  The Court was persuaded that CRA's decision was made in light of the particular facts and was not improperly predetermined by a rigid approach to policy guidelines without regard to the totality of the facts. Finally, the Court found that there was no breach of procedural fairness as the First Nation was afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard by an independent decision maker who was informed by representations from the First Nation.

Dugan v. The Queen, 2011 TCC 269

By: Scott Robertson

Available at: http://www.canlii.org

Employees of Native Housing organization exempt from taxation

This is an appeal of six separate tax appellants under the Income Tax Act. All are status Indians and former employees of a native employee leasing agency. The Court found that three of the appellants, working for Brantford Native Housing (BNH), a non profit organization located contiguous to the Reserve, were exempt from income taxation. In the application of the connecting factors test, the Court found that the work performed by the appellants at BNH provided significant and direct benefit to that community.

The services of BNH addressed the on-Reserve housing shortage. The work being performed off-Reserve was disconnected but not fatal as the proximity of BNH to the Reserve made it "contiguous" to the Reserve. The Court found that it was "almost axiomatic that a community that lacks housing, even temporary housing, will gravitate to the closest place outside the community that has facilities to help deal with the problem".

In addition to the benefits of the work being performed by the appellants for the Reserve, the Court also relied on the employers' location and the location of the debt being owed to the appellants as well as the fact that the Indians were resident on Reserve to find that their income was on Reserve for the purposes of s.87 of the Indian Act. An employee in similar circumstances but who did not live on Reserve was denied the exemption.

Roberts v. The Queen, 2011 TCC 205

By: Scott Robertson

Available at: http://www.canlii.org

Motion for advanced costs for First Nation tax appeal denied

Three First Nation appellants from B.C. brought a motion for an advanced costs order in respect of their tax appeals on fishing income earned. The appellants were collectively seeking $350,000 in any event of the cause. The appellants had unsuccessfully sought funding from provincial legal aid authorities, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, the federal Court Challenges Program, their respective band councils and the Native Indian Brotherhood. The Court applied the Okanagan test to determine whether the necessary conditions were present for an award of interim costs. The Court determined that even if all three of the Okanagan preconditions were presumed to be met, the personal tax appeals involving the taxation of three individuals did not rise to the level of special, rare and exceptional circumstances which warrant the favourable exercise of the Court's discretion in the granting of an advanced costs order. The motion for an advanced costs award was dismissed.

Alberta (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development) v. Cunningham, 2011 SCC 37

By: Erin Runnalls

Supreme Court of Canada, July 21, 2011

Available at: http://scc.lexum.org/en/2011/2011scc37/2011scc37.html

Supreme Court of Canada decision on the constitutionality of the exclusivity of Métis membership pursuant to the Métis Settlements Act

The Supreme Court of Canada held that sections 75 and 90 of the Métis Settlements Act, RSA 2000, c M-14 ("MSA"), providing that Métis settlement members who voluntarily register as Indians under the Indian Act, RSC 1985, c I-5 are automatically disqualified from being Métis settlement members, do not violate the equality rights guaranteed by section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the "Charter"), because the MSA is an ameliorative program pursuant to section 15(2) of the Charter.  Ameliorative programs permit the government to provide benefits to a specific, disadvantaged group without having to confer the same benefits to all.

The Supreme Court's decision in this case contains language that is strongly supportive of the recognition of the Métis as a unique and distinct people, and of the importance of Métis-specific legislation allowing the Métis a role in defining their own communities.

The Facts of the Case:

The case arose from a challenge brought by individuals whose membership in the Peavine Métis Settlement was terminated pursuant to section 90(1)(a) of the MSA, which calls for the removal of Métis settlement members who voluntarily register as Indians under the Indian Act.  Subject to certain exceptions, section 75 of the MSA prohibits individuals with Indian status from obtaining Métis settlement membership.  Their evidence was that they voluntarily registered as Indians under the Indian Act to obtain medical benefits available to status Indians, but not to Métis settlement members.

The Chambers Judge denied the respondents' request for a declaration that sections 75 and 90(1)(a) of the MSA breached sections 2(d), 7, and/or 15(1) of the Charter.  The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, and granted a declaration of constitutional invalidity of sections 75 and 90 of the MSA on the basis of their violation of the equality rights guaranteed by section 15(1) of the Charter, and directed the Registrar to restore the respondents' names to the Peavine Métis Settlement membership list.

The Supreme Court's Ruling:

The Supreme Court dismissed the section 15 Charter claim on the basis that the MSA is an ameliorative program protected by section 15(2) of the Charter.  Ameliorative programs, by their nature, confer benefits on one group that are not conferred on others.  Section 15(2) of the Charter permits governments to assist one group without being paralyzed by the necessity to assist all.

The Supreme Court noted that section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 recognizes three unique and distinct groups of Aboriginal peoples — Indians, Métis and Inuit.  Further, the Supreme Court found the negotiations between the Alberta government and the Métis for the protection and enhancement of Métis culture and identity, distinct from Indian culture and identity, had resulted in the enactment of the MSA.  These negotiations were found by the Court to be an acknowledgement by the government that the Métis are a distinct rights-holding group.  The Court, therefore, found that consistent with the government and Métis' desire to preserve Métis culture and identity, the MSA limits the scope for status Indians to be recognized as members of settlement communities.

Section 15 of the Charter protects against discriminatory laws and government actions.  Its goal is to enhance substantive equality, and it does so in two ways.  First, section 15(1) is aimed at preventing discrimination on an enumerated or analogous ground.  Second, section 15(2) is aimed at permitting governments through ameliorative programs to improve the situation of members of disadvantaged groups that have suffered discrimination in the past, in order to enhance substantive equality.  The purpose of section 15(2) is to save ameliorative programs from the charge of "reverse discrimination".

The first step is to determine whether the law makes an adverse distinction against the claimant group on the basis of one of the grounds set out in section 15(1) or an analogous ground.  The Supreme Court assumed that the distinction between the Métis and status Indians in the MSA is a distinction on an enumerated or analogous ground on the basis of the Chambers Judge's determination.

The second step is to determine whether the distinction is saved by section 15(2).  Under this second step, the government must show, on the evidence, the following:

  1. That the program is a genuinely ameliorative program directed at improving the situation of a group that is in need of ameliorative assistance in order to enhance substantive equality;
  2. That there is a correlation between the program and the disadvantage suffered by the target group; and
  3. That rational means are being used to pursue the ameliorative goal.

If these conditions are met, section 15(2) protects all distinctions drawn on enumerated or analogous grounds that serve and are necessary to the ameliorative purpose, to the extent justified by the object of the ameliorative program.

In applying the second step, the Supreme Court held that the MSA is a genuinely ameliorative program.  Unlike many ameliorative programs, its object is not the direct conferral of benefits on individuals within a particular group, but the enhancement and preservation of the identity, culture and self-governance of the Métis through the establishment of a Métis land base.  Excluding Métis who are also status Indians from formal membership in Métis settlements serves these objects, the Court ruled.

The Supreme Court found that the record did not provide them with an adequate basis to assess the section 2(d) Charter claim, and found that the section 7 Charter claim failed because any impact on liberty was not shown at trial to be contrary to the principles of fundamental justice.

Spookw v. Gitxsan Treaty Society et al., 2011 BCSC 1001

By: Jaimie Lickers

Available at: http://canlii.ca

The plaintiffs in this action, which included six hereditary chiefs and four Gitxsan bands, commenced an action against the Gitxsan Treaty Society (the "GTS"), the Governments of Canada and British Columbia and the British Columbia Treaty Commission (the "Commission") in relation to the funding of treaty negotiation.  The Commission brought an application to dismiss the plaintiff's claim against it for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The Commission monitors and facilitates treaty negotiations in British Columbia and is responsible for the allocation of funds to First Nations involved in treaty negotiations.  The Commission must abide by certain statutory criteria in the allocation of funds including the criterion that any request for funds by a First Nation be supported by its constituents.  The plaintiffs named the Commission in their action on the basis that it had negligently approved and advanced funds to the GTS as representing various Gitxsan bands and individuals despite opposition to GTS' authority to do so.

The plaintiffs alleged that the Commission breached its duty of care to the plaintiffs to ensure that so called GTS negotiators had a mandate from the Gitxsan people to negotiate on their behalf.  While the Court found that there was sufficient foreseeable to harm to the plaintiffs in the event that the Commission acted negligently, it did not find that the relationship between the plaintiffs and the Commission was sufficiently close to meet the proximity requirement necessary to ground a duty of care.  Despite the fact that the Commission received direct complaints from individuals and hereditary chiefs about GTS' failure to represent Gitxsan interests, the Court held that the Commission is required to respect the self-governance of First Nations and that it does not have a duty to involve itself in the governance of a First Nation by acting to protect a minority interest within that First Nation.  The Court went on to state that the Commission "is intended to be an impartial and arms-length body that cannot be involved in the internal structure and processes of the Gitxsan Nation."

The Court also held that aside from failing to meet the proximity requirement, policy concerns prevented the imposition of a duty of care on the Commission.  Namely, the Court held that the imposition of such a duty of care would amount to indeterminate liability as there are 60 First Nations and 110 bands currently involved in the treaty process and that this process covers some 200,000 First Nations individuals.

As a result, the plaintiff's action against the Commission was dismissed and costs were awarded to the Commission.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions