Bear v. Canada (Attorney General), (2001) 212 F.T.R. 208 (TD)

• Judge: Muldoon, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 26, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2001), 212 F.T.R. 208 (TD)

Bear v. Can. (A.G.) (2001), 212 F.T.R. 208 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] F.T.R. TBEd. NO.016

Rose Bear (applicant) v. Attorney General of Canada (respondent)

(T-46-00; 2001 FCT 1192)

Indexed As: Bear v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Muldoon, J.

November 1, 2001.

Summary:

Bear, a status Indian, had been employed on an Indian Reserve since 1966. Through the combined effect of the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) Act, the Income Tax Act and the Indian Act, Bear's income was not taxable and therefore not pensionable under the CPP. In 1988, the CPP Regulations were amended to allow Bear and other similarly situated persons to participate in the CPP. Bear opted into the CPP in 1988. Revenue Canada refused her request that she be allowed to contribute the maximum amount retroactively. Bear sought judicial review.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that Bear had been discriminated against contrary to s. 1(b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights and that the offending parts of the Indian Act, Income Tax Act and Canada Pension Plan Act were of no force and effect insofar as they created that inequality; and the appropriate remedy was to allow Bear to pay back her CPP premiums in order to qualify for full benefits upon reaching age 65. The court stated that the Charter was probably not applicable because of the prohibition against retroactive application. The court stated that, if the Charter was applicable, the CPP breached s. 15 and was not saved by s. 1.

Civil Rights - Topic 928

Discrimination - Government programs - Pension legislation - Bear, a status Indian, had been employed on an Indian Reserve since 1966 - Through the combined effect of the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) Act, the Income Tax Act and the Indian Act, income earned by an Indian employed on an Indian reserve was not taxable and therefore not pensionable under the CPP - In 1988, the CPP Regulations were amended to allow Bear and other similarly situated persons to participate in the CPP, if a Canadian resident - Bear opted in, but Revenue Canada refused her request to contribute the maximum amount retroactively - Bear sought judicial review - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that Bear had been discriminated against contrary to s. 1(b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights and the offending provisions were of no force and effect - Bear could pay back her CPP premiums in order to qualify for full benefits upon reaching age 65 - See paragraphs 35 to 40 and 42.

Civil Rights - Topic 1034

Discrimination - Race and national or ethnic origin - Indians - [See Civil Rights - Topic 928 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 5658

Equality and protection of the law - Particular cases - Pension legislation - [See Civil Rights - Topic 928 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8002

Canadian Bill of Rights - Principles of operation and interpretation - Section 1 - Meaning of "discrimination" - [See Civil Rights - Topic 928 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8007

Canadian Bill of Rights - Principles of operation and interpretation - Equality before the law - [See Civil Rights - Topic 928 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8304

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - General - Application of - General - Bear, a status Indian, had been employed on an Indian Reserve since 1966 - Through the combined effect of the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) Act, the Income Tax Act and the Indian Act, her income was not taxable and therefore not pensionable under the CPP - In 1988, amendments to the CPP Regulations allowed Bear and other similarly situated persons to participate in the CPP - Bear opted in, but Revenue Canada refused her request to contribute the maximum amount retroactively - Bear sought judicial review - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, stated that the Charter was probably not applicable because of the prohibition against retroactive application - The court stated that, if the Charter was applicable, the CPP breached s. 15 and was not saved by s. 1 - See paragraphs 14 to 30 and 32 to 34.

Civil Rights - Topic 8664

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Equality rights (s. 15) - Application - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8304 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8668

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Equality rights (s. 15) - What constitutes a breach of s. 15 - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8304 ].

Government Programs - Topic 1252

Canada Pension Plan - Assessments and contributions - Retroactive contributions - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8304 ].

Cases Noticed:

Toth v. Minister of National Revenue (1969), 69 D.T.C. 115 (T.C.C.), disagreed with [para. 6].

Nowegijick v. Minister of National Revenue et al., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 29; 46 N.R. 41, refd to. [para. 12].

Benner v. Canada (Secretary of State), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 358; 208 N.R. 81, dist. [para. 14].

Gamble v. R., [1988] 2 S.C.R. 595; 89 N.R. 161; 31 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 15].

Law v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497; 236 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 25].

Mitchell and Milton Management Ltd. v. Peguis Indian Band et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 85; 110 N.R. 241; 67 Man.R.(2d) 81, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335, refd to. [para. 33].

Egan and Nesbit v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513; 182 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Drybones, [1970] S.C.R. 282, refd to. [para. 36].

Robertson and Rosettani v. R., [1963] S.C.R. 651, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Hayden (1983), 23 Man.R.(2d) 315 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177; 58 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 38].

Northwest Territories v. Public Service Alliance of Canada et al. (2001), 272 N.R. 88; 201 D.L.R.(4th) 129 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

Williams v. Minister of National Revenue, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 877; 136 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 49].

Ardoch Algonquin First Nation and Allies et al. v. Ontario et al., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 950; 255 N.R. 1; 134 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 50].

Corbiere et al. v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs) et al., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 203; 239 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 53].

Manitoba Language Rights Reference, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721; 59 N.R. 321; 35 Man.R.(2d) 83, refd to. [para. 74].

Reference Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217; 228 N.R. 203, refd to. [para. 74].

Schachter v. Canada, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 77].

Archibald et al. v. Canada, [2000] 4 F.C. 479; 257 N.R. 105 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 97].

R. v. Stevens, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 1153; 86 N.R. 85, refd to. [para. 102].

Murray v. Canada (Minister of Health and Welfare) (1998), 227 N.R. 77; 161 D.L.R.(4th) 185 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 102].

Residential Schools, Re, [2000] A.R. Uned. 235; [2000] 9 W.W.R. 437 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 102].

Angus v. Hart and Angus and Sun Alliance Insurance Co., [1988] 2 S.C.R. 256; 87 N.R. 200; 30 O.A.C. 210, refd to. [para. 103].

Canadian Egg Marketing Agency v. Pineview Poultry Product et al., [1998] 3 S.C.R. 157; 231 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 118].

Canadian Egg Marketing Agency v. Richardson - see Canadian Egg Marketing Agency v. Pineview Poultry Product et al.

Black & Co. v. Law Society of Alberta, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 591; 93 N.R. 266; 96 A.R. 352, refd to. [para. 118].

Malartic Hygrade Gold Mines (Quebec) Ltd. v. Quebec (1982), 142 D.L.R.(3d) 512 (Que. S.C.), refd to. [para. 119].

Vriend et al. v. Alberta, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 493; 224 N.R. 1; 212 A.R. 237; 168 W.A.C. 237; 156 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 121].

M. v. H., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3; 238 N.R. 179; 121 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 121].

Beauregard v. Canada, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 56; 70 N.R. 1; 30 D.L.R.(4th) 481; 26 C.R.R. 59, refd to. [para. 124].

Reference Re s. 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266, refd to. [para. 126].

R. v. Morgentaler, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 463; 157 N.R. 97; 125 N.S.R.(2d) 81; 349 A.P.R. 81, refd to. [para. 126].

Collins v. Canada, [2000] 2 F.C. 3; 178 F.T.R. 161 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 128].

Miron and Valliere v. Trudel et al., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 418; 181 N.R. 253; 81 O.A.C. 253, refd to. [para. 129].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Assembly of First Nations: Disparity and Despair, First Nations and the CPP, p. 402 [para. 48].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, vol. 109, No. 229, 2nd Sess., 26th Parliament (March 8, 1965), generally [para. 89]; pp. 205, 206 [para. 54].

Canada, Interdepartmental Sub-Committee on Coverage, Coverage of Indians Precluded from Making Contributions by Virtue of Earnings for Services Rendered on Reserves Being Tax Exempt, Report (July 26, 1972), pp. 1 [para. 57]; 2 [para. 58].

Canada, Sub-Committee of the Interdepartmental Committee to Study Amendments to the Indian Act, meeting minutes (January 31, 1968), p. 3 [para. 56].

Canada, Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, Study of Bill C-166, generally [para. 93].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 192 [para. 16].

Hogg, Peter, Constitutional Law of Canada, c. 32, pp. 32-2 [para. 123]; 1241 [para. 80].

Maxwell, Interpretation of Statutes (12th Ed. 1969), pp. 215, 222 [para. 103].

Counsel:

Timothy Valgardson and Michelle Pollock-Kohn, for the plaintiff/applicant;

Brian Hay and Kevin Staska, for the defendant/respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Levine Levene Tadman, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the plaintiff/applicant;

Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the defendant/respondent.

This application was heard at Winnipeg, Manitoba, on June 26, 2001, by Muldoon, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on November 1, 2001.