Cdn. Pacific v. Matsqui Indian Band, (1999) 243 N.R. 302 (FCA)

• Judge: Marceau, Desjardins and Robertson, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: June 25, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1999), 243 N.R. 302 (FCA)

Cdn. Pacific v. Matsqui Indian Band (1999), 243 N.R. 302 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] N.R. TBEd. JL.027

The Matsqui Indian Band and Matsqui Indian Band Council (appellants/respondents) v. Canadian Pacific Limited and Unitel Communications Inc. (respondents/applicants) and The Little Shuswap Indian Band and The Little Shuswap Indian Band Council (interveners) and Chief Clarence T. (Manny) Jules and The Indian Taxation Advisory Board (interveners)

(A-389-96)

Seabird Island Indian Band and Seabird Island Indian Band Council (appellants/respondents) v. Canadian Pacific Limited (respondent/applicant) and The Little Shuswap Indian Band and The Little Shuswap Indian Band Council (interveners) and Chief Clarence T. (Manny) Jules and The Indian Taxation Advisory Board (interveners)

(A-386-96)

Boothroyd Indian Band and Boothroyd Indian Band Council (appellants/respondents) v. Canadian Pacific Limited (respondent/applicant) and The Little Shuswap Indian Band and The Little Shuswap Indian Band Council (interveners) and Chief Clarence T. (Manny) Jules and The Indian Taxation Advisory Board (interveners)

(A-403-96)

Cook's Ferry Indian Band and Cook's Ferry Indian Band Council (appellants/respondents) v. Canadian Pacific Limited (respondent/applicant) and The Little Shuswap Indian Band and The Little Shuswap Indian Band Council (interveners) and Chief Clarence T. (Manny) Jules and The Indian Taxation Advisory Board (interveners)

(A-479-96)

Skuppah Indian Band and Skuppah Indian Band Council (appellants/respondents) v. Canadian Pacific Limited (respondent/applicant) and The Little Shuswap Indian Band and The Little Shuswap Indian Band Council (interveners) and Chief Clarence T. (Manny) Jules and The Indian Taxation Advisory Board (interveners)

(A-480-96)

Indexed As: Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Matsqui Indian Band et al.

Federal Court of Appeal

Marceau, Desjardins and Robertson, JJ.A.

June 25, 1999.

Summary:

Several British Columbia Indian Bands were authorized to assess and tax real prop­erty rights in their reserves and passed bylaws to implement such taxation systems. Under the various bylaws, notices of assess­ment were sent to Canadian Pacific respect­ing a strip of land through the reserves over which Canadian Pacific had laid railway tracks. Under the various bylaws the lands of Canadian Pacific on the reserves were assessed for tax. Canadian Pacific com­menced judicial review proceedings to have the assessments set aside on the ground that its land was exempt.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a decision reported at 111 F.T.R. 161, allowed the application. The court found that the railways had been granted a determinable fee simple in the lands and set aside the Indian Band property assessment notices as being outside the taxing jurisdic­tion of the Indian Bands. Alternatively, the court severed the aspects of the assessment notices which discriminated as between persons. The Indian Bands appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal, per Marceau, J.A., dismissed the appeal, holding that the assessment notices were not valid because the lands occupied by Canadian Pacific were not "in the reserve". However, he agreed with Robertson, J.A., that the taxation bylaws were not discriminatory. The Federal Court of Appeal, per Desjardins, J.A., dis­missed the appeal on the ground that the bylaws were discriminatory. However, she agreed with Robertson, J.A., that the lands were in the reserve. The Federal Court of Appeal, per Robertson, J.A., allowed the appeal, holding that the assessment notices were valid because the Canadian Pacific lands were in the reserve and the bylaws were not invalid on the basis that they were discriminatory.

Editor's Note: For related decisions see 58 F.T.R. 23; 153 N.R. 307; 177 N.R. 325 and 228 N.R. 378.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 5

General - Interpretation of legislation - [See second Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 5463 ].

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 5463

Lands - Surrender of lands - Status of surrendered lands - CP had right of ways through reserve lands - CP alleged, inter alia, that under the Canadian Pacific Rail­way Act, 1881 (CPR Act), the Crown was authorized to convey fee simple title to the right of ways - The Federal Court of Appeal held that the CPR Act did not authorize the government to convey fee simple title to the right of ways - Not­with­standing what the Letters Patent pur­ported to convey, CP was entitled to no more than a statutory easement or licence because of the restriction on the alienation of Crown lands acquired by railway com­panies in the Railway Act - The CPR Act and Contract did not override that restric­tion because they failed to expressly state that the rel­evant provision of the Railway Act was being displaced, as required under the Railway Act - See paragraphs 132 to 144.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 5463

Lands - Surrender of lands - Status of surrendered lands - CP had right of ways through reserve lands - CP alleged, inter alia, that under the Canadian Pacific Rail­way Act, 1881, once the railway was complet­ed, the Crown was authorized to convey it to CP, whereupon it would become CP's "absolute property" - The Federal Court of Appeal held that the Crown obligation could not be construed as an obligation to convey fee simple title to the right of ways - The legislation did not state that CP was to receive "absolute title" to real and personal property - Ambiguities and "doubtful expressions" in the statute should be resolved in favour of the Indians - CP never needed more than a statutory ease­ment to effectively operate its railway lines across reserve lands and, in the absence of an express extinguish­ment, could not legitimately claim more - See paragraphs 145 to 159.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 5463

Lands - Surrender of lands - Status of surrendered lands - CP had right of ways through reserve lands - CP alleged, inter alia, that under the Canadian Pacific Rail­way Act, 1881, the Crown was authorized to convey fee simple title to the right of ways, that such title was conveyed to CP, and that the Crown agreed to extinguish "Indian title" to the railway lands - The Federal Court of Appeal held that the Crown obligation to extinguish "Indian title" did not apply to the Western segment of the railway in which all of the right of ways in question were situated - See para­graphs 160 to 167.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 5492

Lands - Taxation by Bands - Assessment - Lands subject to - Several British Col­um­bia Indian Bands were authorized to assess and tax real property rights in their reserves and passed bylaws to implement such taxation systems - Under the bylaws, notices of assessment were sent to Cana­dian Pacific respecting a strip of land through the reserves over which Canadian Pacific had laid railway tracks - Canadian Pacific applied to have the assessments set aside - At issue, inter alia, was whether the lands occupied by Canadian Pacific were "in the reserve" for assessment pur­poses - The Federal Court of Appeal held that the lands occupied by Canadian Pacific were in the reserve and thus the assessment notices were valid - See para­graphs 33, 94 to 174.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 5492.2

Lands - Taxation by Bands - Assessment - Persons subject to - Several British Colum­bia Indian Bands were authorized to assess and tax real property rights in their reserves and passed bylaws to implement such taxation systems - Under the various bylaws, notices of assessment were sent to Canadian Pacific respecting a strip of land through the reserves over which Canadian Pacific had laid railway tracks - Canadian Pacific applied to have the assessments set aside - At issue, inter alia, was whether the taxation bylaws were discriminatory because they discriminated between Indians and non-Indians - The Federal Court of Appeal held that the bylaws were not invalid on the basis that they were discrim­inatory - There was, by reasonable impli­cation, authority on the part of band coun­cils to exempt the property interests of reserve Indians from taxation - See para­graphs 25 to 30 and 175 to 197.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6018

Aboriginal rights - General - Extinguish­ment - [See all Indians, Inuit and Métis -Topic 5463 ].

Real Property - Topic 405

Estates in fee simple - General - Fee simple vs. fee simple determinable - The Federal Court of Appeal held that convey­ancing documents received by Canadian Pacific purported to convey fee simple title to right of ways, not deter­minable fees, notwithstanding that they stated that the lands were granted "for railway purposes" -See paragraphs 96 to 101.

Real Property - Topic 7075

Easements, licences and prescriptive rights - Rights of way - General - What consti­tutes - [See first and second Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 5463 ].

Words and Phrases

Absolute property - The Federal Court of Appeal, discussed the meaning of "absolute property" as found in s. 5 of the Canadian Pacific Railway Act, 1881, 44 Vict., c. 1 - See paragraphs 145 to 159.

Cases Noticed:

Kruger v. Canada, [1986] 1 F.C. 3; 58 N.R. 241 (F.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 5, 121, footnotes 6, 71].

Vancouver (City) v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co. (1894), 23 S.C.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 11, 142, footnotes 8, 82].

Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. James Bay Railway Co. (1905), 36 S.C.R. 42, refd to. [para. 11, footnote 9].

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Paul et al., [1988] 2 S.C.R. 654; 89 N.R. 325; 91 N.B.R.(2d) 43; 232 A.P.R. 43, refd to. [paras. 24, 158, footnotes 17, 96].

Northwest/Prince Rupert Assessor, Area No. 25 v. N & V Johnson Services Ltd. (1990), 49 B.C.L.R.(2d) 173 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 37, 175, footnotes 25, 100].

Westbank Property Management Ltd. v. Kelowna Assessor, Area No. 19, [1993] 1 C.N.L.R. 176 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 37, footnote 25].

Kinookimaw Beach Association v. Saskatchewan, [1979] 6 W.W.R. 84 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 37, footnote 25].

Stony Plain Indian Reserve No. 135 Development, Re (1981), 35 A.R. 42; 130 D.L.R.(3d) 636 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37, footnote 25].

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Matsqui Indian Band et al., [1996] 3 F.C. 373; 111 F.T.R. 161 (T.D.), refd to. [paras. 43, 92, footnotes 27, 51].

Mitchell and Milton Management Ltd. v. Pequis Indian Band et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 85; 110 N.R. 241; 67 Man.R.(2d) 81; 71 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 49, footnote 28].

Williams v. Minister of National Revenue, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 877; 136 N.R. 161; 92 D.T.C. 6320, refd to. [para. 50, footnote 29].

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Matsqui Indian Band et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 3; 177 N.R. 325; 122 D.L.R.(4th) 129; 26 Admin. L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [paras. 54, 88, foot­notes 31, 47].

St. Mary's Indian Band et al. v. Cranbrook (City), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 657; 213 N.R. 290; 92 B.C.A.C. 161; 150 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [paras. 56, 102, footnotes 32, 58].

Arcade Amusements Inc. v. Montreal, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 368; 58 N.R. 339, refd to. [paras. 66, 178, footnotes 34, 101].

Montreal (City) v. Fountainhead Fun Centres Ltd. - see Arcade Amusements Inc. v. Montreal.

R. v. Sharma (D.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 650; 149 N.R. 161; 61 O.A.C. 161; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 142, refd to. [para. 69, foot­note 38].

Forget v. Québec (Procureur général) and Office de la langue française, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 90; 87 N.R. 37, refd to. [para. 69, footnote 38].

Shell Canada Products Ltd. v. Vancouver (City), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 231; 163 N.R. 81; 41 B.C.A.C. 81; 66 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 69, footnote 38].

R. v. Sioui, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1025; 109 N.R. 22; 30 Q.A.C. 280; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 225; 70 D.L.R.(4th) 427, refd to. [paras. 71, 193, footnotes 39, 111].

Minnabarriet v. Cook's Ferry Band, [1990] B.C.W.L.D. 2088 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 71, footnote 40].

Whitebear Band Council v. Carpenter's Provincial Council of Saskatchewan and Labour Relations Board (Sask.), [1982] 3 W.W.R. 554; 15 Sask.R. 37 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 73, 183, footnotes 42, 103].

Stacey v. R., [1982] 3 C.N.L.R. 158 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 74, footnote 43].

Stacey v. Montour - see Stacey v. R.

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Matsqui Indian Band et al. (1998), 228 N.R. 378; 162 D.L.R.(4th) 649 (F.C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1999), 237 N.R. 400 (S.C.C.), dist. [para. 90, footnote 50].

Leonard v. British Columbia, [1984] 4 W.W.R. 37 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 102, footnote 57].

Kamloops Indian Band v. British Columbia - see Leonard v. British Columbia.

Thompson v. Fraser Cos., [1930] S.C.R. 109, refd to. [para. 108, footnote 60].

R. v. Bonhomme and Daoust (1917), 16 Ex. C.R. 437, affd. (1918), 59 S.C.R. 679, refd to. [para. 108, footnote 60].

British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Mount Currie Indian Band (1991), 54 B.C.L.R.(2d) 156 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 116, footnote 63].

Opetchesaht Indian Band et al. v. Canada et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 119; 211 N.R. 241; 90 B.C.A.C. 1; 147 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 121, footnote 71].

Macleay, In Re (1875), L.R. 20 Eq. 186, refd to. [para. 127, footnote 76].

Dugdale v. Dugdale (1888), 38 Ch. D. 176, refd to. [para. 127, footnote 76].

Reese et al. v. R. (1957), 10 D.L.R.(2d) 479 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 128, foot­note 77].

Hartley v. Matson (1902), 32 S.C.R. 644, refd to. [para. 128, footnote 77].

St. Ann's Island Shooting & Fishing Club v. R., [1950] S.C.R. 211, refd to. [para. 128, footnote 77].

Osoyoos Indian Band v. Oliver (Town) et al., [1997] B.C.T.C. Uned. 479; 145 D.L.R.(4th) 552 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 130, footnote 79].

Gitanmaax Indian Band v. British Colum­bia Hydro and Power Authority (1991), 84 D.L.R.(4th) 562 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 130, footnote 79].

St. Catherine's Milling and Lumber Co. v. R. (1888), 14 App. Cas. 46 (Can. P.C.), refd to. [para. 132, footnote 80].

Reference Re Taxation of Canadian Pacific Railway, [1951] S.C.R. 190, refd to. [para. 147, footnote 84].

Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Saskatchewan (Attorney General) - see Reference Re Taxation of Canadian Pacific Railway.

Halley v. Minister of National Revenue, [1963] Ex. C.R. 372, refd to. [para. 149, footnote 87].

Estabrooks Pontiac Buick Ltd., Re; New Brunswick v. Estabrooks Pontiac Buick Ltd., Estabrooks and Wolfe (1982), 44 N.B.R.(2d) 201; 116 A.P.R. 201; 144 D.L.R.(3d) 21 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 152, footnote 88].

Guerin v. Canada, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335; 55 N.R. 161; [1985] 1 C.N.L.R. 120, refd to. [para. 153, footnote 91].

Delgamuukw et al. v. British Columbia et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010; 220 N.R. 161; 99 B.C.A.C. 161; 162 W.A.C. 161; 153 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 153, footnote 92].

Nowegijick v. Minister of National Rev­enue et al., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 29; 46 N.R. 41; 83 D.T.C. 5041; 144 D.L.R.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 154, footnote 93].

Calder v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1973] S.C.R. 313, refd to. [para. 170, footnote 97].

Delgamuukw et al. v. British Columbia et al. (1991), 79 D.L.R.(4th) 185 (B.C.S.C.), varied (1993), 30 B.C.A.C. 1; 49 W.A.C. 1; 104 D.L.R.(4th) 470 (C.A.), revd. in part [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010; 220 N.R. 161; 99 B.C.A.C. 161; 162 W.A.C. 161; 153 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 170, footnote 98].

Four B Manufacturing Ltd. v. United Gar­ment Workers of America and Labour Relations Board (Ont.) and Brant et al., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1031; 30 N.R. 421, refd to. [para. 175, footnote 100].

Western Industrial Contractors Ltd. v. Sarcee Developments Ltd., [1979] 3 W.W.R. 631; 15 A.R. 309 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 175, footnote 100].

Sabattis et al. v. Oromocto Indian Band and Sacobie et al. (1986), 76 N.B.R.(2d) 227; 192 A.P.R. 227; 32 D.L.R.(4th) 680 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 183, footnote 103].

Chadee v. Norway House First Nation et al. (1996), 113 Man.R.(2d) 110; 131 W.A.C. 110; 139 D.L.R.(4th) 589 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 183, footnote 103].

Deer and Rainey v. Kahnawake Indian Band (Mohawk Council), [1991] 2 F.C. 18; 41 F.T.R. 306 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 183, footnote 103].

Corbiere et al. v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs) et al., [1994] 1 F.C. 394; 67 F.T.R. 81 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 183, footnote 103].

Batchewana Indian Band (Non-Resident Members) v. Batchewan Indian Band - see Corbiere et al. v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs) et al.

Chippewas of Nawash First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs) et al. (1996), 116 F.T.R. 37 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 183, footnote 104].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 481; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 48 C.R.(3d) 289; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 536; 36 M.V.R. 240; 69 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145; 18 C.R.R. 30, refd to. [para. 187, footnote 106].

Harel v. Québec, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 851; 18 N.R. 91, refd to. [para. 189, footnote 107].

McClanahan v. Arizona Tax Commission (1973), 411 U.S. 164, refd to. [para. 93, footnote 111].

Bryan v. Itasca County (1976), 426 U.S. 373 (U.S. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 193, footnote 111].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Pacific Railway Act, 1881, 44 Vict., c. 1, sect. 3 [para. 163]; sect. 5 [para. 18]; Sch., art. 7, art. 9, art. 10, art. 11, art. 12, art. 14 [para. 18]; Sch. A., sect. 17 [para. 140]; sect. 18 [para. 141].

Consolidated Railway Act, 1879, 42 Vict., c. 9, sect. 2.2, sect. 2.3 [para. 127]; sect. 7(3) [para. 126].

Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-5, sect. 2 [para. 2, footnote 2]; sect. 83(1)(a) [para. 53]; sect 87 [para. 47].

Treaty 3, generally [para. 171].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bartlett, R., Indians and Taxation in Canada (3rd Ed. 1992), pp. 23 to 26 [para. 193, footnote 111]; 26 [paras. 184, 193, footnotes 105, 110]; 27 [para. 184, footnote 105].

Canada, Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Restructuring the Relationship (1996), vol. 2, Part 1, p. 291 [para. 193, footnote 110].

Cheshire, G.C., and Burn, E.H., Modern Law of Real Property (15th Ed. 1994), generally [para. 127, footnote 76].

Côté, Pierre-André, Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (2nd Ed. 1991), p. 62 [para. 21, footnote 16].

Davies, V.L., The Use of Inter Vivos Trusts to Preserve Treaty Entitlements, 1993 Conference Report: Report of Pro­ceedings of the Forty-Fifth Tax Confer­ence (1994), p. 54:5 [para. 37, footnote 25].

Dempsey, H.A., Treaty Research Report: Treaty Seven (1987), pp. 48, 49 [para. 172, footnote 99].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (4th Student Ed. 1996), p. 344, para. 15.6 [para. 82, footnote 46].

Isaac, T., Aboriginal Law: Cases, Materials and Commentary (2nd Ed. 1999), p. 505ff [para. 74, footnote 43].

La Forest, Gerard V., Natural Resources and Public Property under the Canadian Constitution (1969), pp. 132, 133 [para. 116, footnote 62].

Megarry, Robert E., and Thompson, M.P., A Manual of the Law of Real Property (7th Ed. 1993), pp. 34 [para. 127, foot­note 76]; 35 [para. 100, footnote 55]; 59 [para. 104, footnote 59]; 197, 198 [para. 100, footnote 55]; 321, 322 [paras. 104, 116, footnotes 59, 64].

Pigeon, Louis-Philippe, Rédaction et interprétation des lois (1978), p. 34 [para. 67].

Smith, D.M., Title to Indian Reserves in British Columbia (1988), generally [para. 13, footnote 12].

Tennant, P., Aboriginal Peoples and Poli­tics: The Indian Land Question in British Columbia, 1849-1989 (1990), pp. 39 to 52 [para. 170, footnote 98].

Counsel:

Arthur Pape, for the appellant, Matsqui Indian Band;

Gary Snarch and Fiona Anderson, for the appellants, Skuppah Indian Band, Seabird Island Indian Band and Cook's Ferry Indian Band;

J. Edward Gouge, Q.C., and W.A. Scott MacFarlane, for the respondents, Cana­dian Pacific Ltd. and Unitel Communi­cations Inc.;

Arthur M. Grant, for the intervener, The Little Shuswap Indian Band;

Leslie J. Pinder and Clarine Ostrove, for the intervener, Chief Clarence T. Jules and The Indian Taxation Advisory Board.

Solicitors of Record:

Pape & Salter, Vancouver, British Colum­bia, for the appellant;

Snarch & Allen, Vancouver, British Co­lumbia, for the appellants, Skuppah Indian Band, Seabird Indian Band and Cook's Ferry Indian Band;

Lawson Lundel Lawson & McIntosh, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent;

Grant Kovacs Norell, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the intervener, The Little Shuswap Indian Band;

Mandell Pinder, Vancouver, British Col­umbia, for the intervener, Chief Clarence T. Jules and The Indian Taxation Advis­ory Board.

This appeal was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on January 18-21, 1999, by Marceau, Desjardins and Robertson, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. On June 25, 1999, at Ottawa, Ontario, the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment which contained the following opinions:

Marceau, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 32;

Desjardins, J.A., concurring in result only - see paragraphs 33 to 84;

Robertson, J.A., dissenting - see para­graphs 85 to 198.