Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Matsqui Indian Band et al., (1995) 177 N.R. 325 (SCC)

• Judge: Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 11, 1994
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1995), 177 N.R. 325 (SCC);177 NR 325;[1995] ACS no 1;26 Admin LR (2d) 1;[1995] SCJ No 1 (QL);[1995] 1 SCR 3;122 DLR (4th) 129;JE 95-232;[1995] 2 CNLR 92;1995 CanLII 145 (SCC);85 FTR 79;52 ACWS (3d) 1185;[1995] CarswellNat 264

Cdn. Pacific v. Matsqui Indian Band (1995), 177 N.R. 325 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Matsqui Indian Band and Matsqui Indian Band Council (appellants) v. Canadian Pacific Limited and Unitel Communications Inc. (respondents) and Indian Taxation Advisory Board (intervener)

Siska Indian Band and Siska Indian Band Council, Kanaka Bar Indian Band and Kanaka Bar Indian Band Council, Nicomen Indian Band and Nicomen Indian Band Council, Shuswap Indian Band and Shuswap Indian Band Council, Skuppah Indian Band and Skuppah Indian Band Council, Spuzzum Indian Band and Spuzzum Indian Band Council (appellants) v. Canadian Pacific Limited (respondent) and Indian Taxation Advisory Board (intervener)

(No. 23643)

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

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.

January 26, 1995.

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. One of the bands also sent a notice of assessment to Unitel Communications Inc., which had laid fibreoptic cables on the Canadian Pacific land. Cana­dian Pacific and Unitel Com­munications Inc. commenced judicial review proceedings to have the assessments set aside. The bands applied to strike the judicial review proceedings on the ground that the bylaws pro­vided an appeal pro­cedure.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a decision reported 58 F.T.R. 23, allowed the bands' application to strike, holding that the statutory appeal procedures were an adequate alternative remedy. The court therefore declined to undertake the judicial review. Canadian Pacific and Unitel appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 153 N.R. 307, allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the Trial Division, and dismissed the bands' application to strike. The Indian bands appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Sopinka, L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and Iacobucci, JJ., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

Administrative Law - Topic 2005

Natural justice - Tribunals subject to rules - Indian bands passed property tax bylaws which included appeal procedures as required by s. 83(3) of the Indian Act - The Supreme Court of Canada, per Lamer, C.J.C. (Cory, J., concurring), stated that the "... prin­ciples of natural justice apply to the bands' tribunals as they would apply to any tribunal per­forming similar func­tions. The fact that the tribunals have been con­stituted within the context of a federal policy pro­moting Abo­riginal self-govern­ment does not, in itself, dilute natural justice" - See para­graph 74.

Administrative Law - Topic 2093

Natural justice - Constitution of tribunal - Bias - Institutional or systemic bias - Impartiality - Indian bands passed prop­erty tax bylaws, including appeal pro­cedures (Indian Act, s. 83(3)) - Cana­dian Pacific et al. sought judicial review of assessments - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, refused to under­take the judicial review because an adequate alternative remedy existed - Cana­dian Pacific argued that the appeal pro­cedures were not an adequate alterna­tive because the appeal tribu­nals' institu­tional structure gave rise to a reason­able appre­hen­sion of bias (i.e., the impartiality of band members poss­ibly appointed to the tribunals) - The Supreme Court of Canada, per Lamer, C.J.C. (Cory, Sopinka, L'Heureux-Dubé, Gon­thier and Iacobucci, JJ., concurring), held that such allega­tions of bias were specu­lative and would have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis - See para­graphs 64 to 72, 138.

Administrative Law - Topic 2093

Natural justice - Constitution of tribunal - Bias - Institutional or systemic bias - Independence - Indian bands passed pro­perty tax bylaws, including appeal pro­cedures (Indian Act, s. 83(3)) - The Fed­eral Court of Canada, Trial Division, re­fused to un­dertake a judicial review re­specting an assessment of Canadian Pacific et al. because an adequate alter­native remedy existed - Cana­dian Pacific argued that the appeal pro­cedures were not an adequate alterna­tive because the appeal tribunals' institu­tional structure gave rise to a rea­son­able appre­hen­sion of bias - The Supreme Court of Canada, per Lamer C.J.C. (Cory, J., con­cur­ring), opined that there was a rea­son­able appre­hension that appeal tribunal members were not suffi­ciently inde­pendent because of a combi­nation of three factors: (1) no finan­cial security; (2) inadequate se­cur­ity of ten­ure; and (3) the tribunals' members were required to deter­mine the interests of the bands who appointed them - See para­graphs 73 to 104.

Administrative Law - Topic 2093

Natural justice - Constitution of tribunal - Bias - Institutional or systemic bias - Independence - Indian bands passed pro­perty tax bylaws, including provisions for appeal tribunals (Indian Act, s. 83(3)) - The Supreme Court of Canada, per Lamer C.J.C. (Cory, J., concurring), opined that the appeal tribunals' institutional struc­ture gave rise to a reason­able apprehen­sion of bias for lack of inde­pendence of tribunal mem­bers - The court emphasized that its decision was based on a combi­nation of factors, including that the tri­bunals' mem­bers had to deter­mine the interests of the bands who appointed them - The court noted that most provincial tax assessment appeal regimes address this problem - "... Such tribunals have suffi­cient indepen­dence, even where other indices of inde­pendence such as secur­ity of tenure or security of remuneration are not guaranteed in the statute authorizing the creation of the tribu­nal ..." - See para­graphs 99, 100.

Administrative Law - Topic 2093

Natural justice - Constitution of tribunal - Bias - Institutional or systemic bias - Independence - Indian band property tax bylaws provided for appeal tribunals (Indian Act, s. 83(3)) - The Supreme Court of Canada, per Lamer, C.J.C. (Cory, J., concurring), opined that the appeal tri­bunals' institutional struc­ture gave rise to a reason­able apprehen­sion of bias for lack of inde­pendence of tribunal members - The court emphasized that it reached this deci­sion because of three factors: (1) no finan­cial security; (2) inad­equate security of tenure; and (3) the tri­bunals' members had to determine the inter­ests of the bands who appointed them - The court commented that bands may be reluc­tant to allow fed­eral govern­ment tribu­nal appoint­ments - There­fore, to con­form to institu­tional inde­pendence requirements, the bylaws must guar­antee re­muneration, stipu­late periods of tenure and ensure that mem­bers may only be dis­missed during tenure with cause - See paragraph 101.

Administrative Law - Topic 2093

Natural justice - Constitution of tribunal - Bias - Institutional or systemic bias - Independence - The Supreme Court of Canada, per Lamer, C.J.C. (Cory, J., con­curring), opined that it is a prin­ciple of natu­ral justice that a party should receive a hearing before an adminis­trative tribunal which is not only indepen­dent, but also appears independent - The prin­ciples in R. v. Valente (S.C.C.), apply to an adminis­trative tribunal, where the tribunal is func­tioning as an adjudicative body settl­ing disputes and determining the rights of parties - The court acknowledged, how­ever, that a strict applica­tion of these principles is not always war­ranted - See paragraph 80 - "... While administrative tribunals are subject to the Valente prin­ciples, the test for insti­tu­tional indepen­dence must be applied in light of the func­tions being performed by the particular tribunal at issue" - See para­graph 83.

Administrative Law - Topic 2093

Natural justice - Constitution of tribunal - Bias - Institutional or systemic bias - Independence - The Supreme Court of Canada, per Lamer, C.J.C. (Cory, J., con­curring), reviewed the test for bias in the context of administra­tive tribunals and how to apply the test for insti­tutional indepen­dence to administrative tribunals - See paragraphs 81 to 83 - So­pinka, J., dis­senting (L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and Iacobucci, JJ., concurring), also discussed the issue of institutional inde­pen­dence in the administrative law context - See para­graphs 138 to 154.

Administrative Law - Topic 2093

Natural justice - Constitution of tribunal - Bias - Institutional or systemic bias - Independence - [See first Administrative Law - Topic 5192 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 5192

Judicial review - Certiorari - Discretion­ary bars to issue of certiorari - Existence of another remedy - Adequacy of - Indian bands passed property tax bylaws, in­clud­ing provisions respecting appeal tribu­nals (Indian Act, s. 83(3)) - Canadian Pacific et al. sought judicial review of cer­tain assessments - The Federal Court of Can- ada, Trial Divi­sion, per Joyal, J., ref­used to under­take the judicial review, where the statu­tory appeal procedures provided an adequate alternative remedy - The Supreme Court of Canada, per Lamer, C.J.C. (Cory, J., concurring), held that Joyal, J., erred in the exercise his discre­tion by failing to consider that the appeal tribunals lacked sufficient independence - Had he done so, he would have concluded that the appeal tribunals were not an adequate alter­native remedy and would have under­taken the judicial review - See paragraphs 1 to 106.

Administrative Law - Topic 5192

Judicial review - Certiorari - Discretion­ary bars to issue of certiorari - Existence of another remedy - Adequacy of - Indian bands passed property tax bylaws, in­clud­ing provisions respecting appeal tribu­nals (Indian Act, s. 83(3)) - Canadian Pacific et al. (the respondents) sought judi­cial review of cer­tain assessments - The Fed­eral Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, per Joyal, J., refused to undertake the judicial review, where the statutory appeal pro­cedures provided an adequate alternative remedy - The Supreme Court of Canada, per La Forest, J., held that Joyal, J., did not exercise his discretion in a proper manner in deciding that the appeal tribunal system was an adequate alternative remedy - Rather the respondents should be allowed the opportun­ity to have this juris­dictional question deter­mined at the outset by the Federal Court - See paragraphs 107, 108.

Administrative Law - Topic 5192

Judicial review - Certiorari - Discretion­ary bars to issue of certiorari - Existence of another remedy - Adequacy of - Indian bands passed taxation bylaws, in­cluding assessment appeal pro­visions, re­specting lands "in the reserves" (Indian Act, s. 83(3)) - Cana­dian Pacific et al. (the re­spondents) sought judi­cial review of as­sess­ments - The Feder­al Court of Canada, Trial Division, per Joyal, J., ref­used to under­take the judicial review, where the statu­tory appeal pro­cedures pro­vided an adequate alternative remedy - The Supreme Court of Canada, per Major, J. (McLach­lin, J., concurring), held that Joyal, J., erred in holding that the alter­native remedy was adequate where the tribu­nal lacked jurisdic­tion to answer the only ques­tion raised (i.e., whether the land was within the reserves) - In this situ­ation, the re­spon­dents are entitled to pro­ceed di­rectly to the courts on a certiorari appli­ca­tion - See para­graphs 109 to 137.

Administrative Law - Topic 5192

Judicial review - Certiorari - Discretion­ary bars to issue of certiorari - Existence of another remedy - Adequacy of - Indian bands passed taxation bylaws, in­cluding assessment appeal provisions, re­specting lands "in the reserves" (Indian Act, s. 83(3)) - Cana­dian Pacific et al. (the re­spondents) sought judicial review of as­sessments - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, per Joyal, J., refused to under­take the judicial review, where the statu­tory appeal pro­cedures pro­vided an adequate alternative remedy - So­pinka, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada, in a dis­sent­ing judgment (L'Heureux-Dubé, Gon­thier and Iacobucci, JJ., concur­ring), opined that Joyal, J., did not err in declin­ing to undertake the judicial review, in finding that the band appeal tribu­nals were an adequate alterna­tive rem­edy and that alle­gations of bias were prema­ture - See paragraphs 138 to 154.

Administrative Law - Topic 5192

Judicial review - Certiorari - Discretion­ary bars to issue of certiorari - Existence of another remedy - Adequacy of - Cana­dian Pacific et al. applied for judicial review of assessments by Indian bands respecting lands in reserves, notwithstand­ing that the tax bylaws pro­vided appeal procedures - The Supreme Court of Canada, per Lamer, C.J.C. (Cory, So­pinka, L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and Iaco­bucci, JJ., con­cur­ring), held that Cana­dian Pacific had the right to seek judicial review before the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, but that did not mean, however, that they had a right to require the court to under­take judi­cial review - The Federal Court Act, s. 18.1(3) preserves the tradi­tionally dis­cre­tionary nature of judicial review - As a result Trial Division judges have a discre­tion in deter­mining whether judicial review should be undertaken - See paragraphs 30, 31, 138.

Administrative Law - Topic 5192

Judicial review - Certiorari - Discretion­ary bars to issue of certiorari - Existence of another remedy - Adequacy of - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the principle of adequate alternative remedy - Lamer, C.J.C. (Cory, J., concurring), opined that the cases of Harelkin v. Uni­versity of Regina and Canada (Auditor General) v. Canada (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) provided that the prerogative writs are discretionary, even in cases in­volv­ing lack of jurisdiction - See para­graphs 33 to 36 - Sopinka, L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and Iacobucci, JJ., expressed agreement with Lamer, C.J.C. - See paragraph 138 - Major and McLach­lin, JJ., disagreed that these cases stood for the proposition that the adequate alterna­tive remedy principle applied even where there is a jurisdictional error - See para­graphs 131 to 135 - La Forest, J., did not specifically refer to these cases - See paragraphs 107, 108.

Administrative Law - Topic 5192

Judicial review - Certiorari - Discretion­ary bars to issue of certiorari - Existence of another remedy - Adequacy of - The Supreme Court of Canada, per Lamer, C.J.C. (Cory, J., concurring), discussed generally the adequate alternative remedy principle - The court stated that a variety of factors should be considered by courts in determining whether they should enter into judicial review, or alternatively should require an applicant to proceed through a statutory appeal procedure - These factors include: the convenience of the alternative remedy, the nature of the error, and the nature of the appellate body - The court com­mented, how­ever, that this cat­egory of factors was not closed and it was for courts in particular circumstances to isolate and balance the relevant factors - See paragraphs 33 to 37 - Sopinka, L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and Iacobucci, JJ., expressed agreement with Lamer, C.J.C. - See paragraph 138.

Administrative Law - Topic 7096

Judicial review - Bars - Discretionary bars - Existence of adequate alternative remedy - [See all seven Admin­is­tra­tive Law - Topic 5192 ].

Courts - Topic 4010

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Creation of right of appeal - Indian bands passed property tax bylaws which included appeal procedures as required by s. 83(3) of the Indian Act, cul­minating with an appeal to the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division - The Federal Court of Appeal held that the bands acted ultra vires in creating appeals to the Trial Divi­sion (Federal Court Act, s. 18.5) - The Supreme Court of Canada, per Lamer, C.J.C. (Cory, J., concurring), held that the appeal court misinter­preted s. 18.5 and rather, should have looked to s. 24 of the Federal Court Act - The court therefore rejected the argument that the bands uni­laterally extended the Trial Divi­sion's jurisdiction - See paragraphs 47 to 53 - Sopinka, L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and Iacobucci, JJ., expressed agreement with Lamer, C.J.C. - See paragraph 138.

Courts - Topic 4034

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Prerogative relief (judicial review) - The Indian Act, s. 83(1)(a), provided that a band could make bylaws respecting taxation of land "in the reserve" - Under s. 83(3) such bylaws had to con­tain appeal procedures - The Supreme Court of Canada, per Lamer, C.J.C. (Cory, J., concurring), held that the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, and an appeal tribunal estab­lished under s. 83(3) have concurrent juris­diction to decide whether land is "in the reserve" (Federal Court Act, s. 18.1) - However, such deci­sions by tribunals will be reviewable on a standard of correct­ness - Further, an appeal tri­bunal's juris­diction was not limited only to issues of valuation, but included issues of classifica­tion of property for tax­ation pur­poses - See para­graphs 20 to 29 - So­pinka, L'Heureux-Dubé, Gon­thier, Iaco­bucci and La Forest, JJ., expressed agree­ment respecting con­cur­rent jurisdic­tion - See paragraphs 107, 138.

Courts - Topic 4052

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Requirement of lack of other remedy - [See all seven Administrative Law - Topic 5192 ].

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 5493

Lands - Taxation by bands - Assessment bylaws - The Supreme Court of Canada, per Lamer, C.J.C. (Cory, J., concurring), held that a tax assessment bylaw imple­mented by an Indian band pursuant to s. 83 of the Indian Act had the status of a regulation per s. 2(1)(a) of the Interpreta­tion Act (Can.) - See paragraph 51 - Sopinka, L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and Iacobucci, JJ., expressed agreement with Lamer, C.J.C. - See paragraph 138.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 5493

Lands - Taxation by bands - Assessment bylaws - [See fourth Administrative Law - Topic 2093 and Courts - Topic 4010 ].

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 5495

Lands - Taxation by bands - Assessment appeals - General - [See fifth Adminis­trative Law - Topic 5192 and Courts - Topic 4010 ].

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 5495.1

Lands - Taxation by bands - Assessment appeals - Appeal tribunals - [See Admin­istrative Law - Topic 2005 , first, second and fourth Adminis­trative Law - Topic 2093 and first, second, third and fourth Adminis­tra­tive Law - Topic 5192 and Courts - Topic 4034 ].

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6324

Government of Indians - Self-government - Application of rules of natural justice - [See Administrative Law - Topic 2005 ].

Real Property Tax - Topic 7101

Assessment appeals - Provincially or municipally appointed tribunal or board - General - [See third Administrative Law - Topic 2093 ].

Real Property Tax - Topic 7164

Assessment appeals - Appeals to the courts (incl. judicial review) - Jurisdiction - [See Courts - Topic 4010 , Courts - Topic 4034 and first, sec­ond, third and fourth Ad­minis­trative Law - Topic 5192 ].

Statutes - Topic 5353

Delegated legislation - Regulations - What constitutes a regulation - [See Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 5493 ].

Cases Noticed:

Syndicat national des employés de la Com­mission scolaire régionale de l'Outa­ouais (CSN) v. Union des em­ployés de service, Local 298 (FTQ), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1048; 95 N.R. 161; 24 Q.A.C. 244, refd to. [paras. 19, 115].

U.E.S., Local 298 v. Bibeault - see Syn­dicat national des employés de la Com­mission scolaire régionale de l'Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ).

Abel Skiver Farm Corp. v. Sainte-Foy (Town) and Commission scolaire de Sainte-Foy, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 403; 54 N.R. 345, refd to. [paras. 24, 123].

Terrasses Zarolega Inc., Zappia, Robinson, Lépine and Gaty v. Régie des Installa­tions Olympiques, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 94; 38 N.R. 411, refd to. [para. 27].

Harelkin v. University of Regina, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 561; [1979] 3 W.W.R. 676; 26 N.R. 364; 96 D.L.R.(3d) 14, refd to. [paras. 33, 126, 141].

Canada (Auditor General) v. Canada (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 49; 97 N.R. 241, refd to. [paras. 36, 105, 135].

Hadmor Productions Ltd. v. Hamilton, [1982] 1 All E.R. 1042 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Valente, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 673; 64 N.R. 1; 14 O.A.C. 79; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 161, refd to. [paras. 62, 142].

R. v. Généreux, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 259; 133 N.R. 241; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 88 D.L.R.(4th) 110, refd to. [para. 62].

Lippé et autres v. Québec (Procureur gé­néral) et autres, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 114; 128 N.R. 1; 39 Q.A.C. 241; 64 C.C.C.(3d) 513, refd to. [paras. 65, 148].

R. v. Lippé - see Lippé et autres v. Qué­bec (Procureur général) et autres.

Newfoundland Telephone Co. v. Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities (Nfld.), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 623; 134 N.R. 241; 95 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 271; 301 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 69].

Pearlman v. Manitoba Law Society Judi­cial Committee, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 869; 130 N.R. 121; 75 Man.R.(2d) 81; 6 W.A.C. 81; 84 D.L.R.(4th) 105, refd to. [paras. 71, 148].

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. [paras. 74, 143].

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; [1990] 3 C.N.L.R. 46; [1990] 5 W.W.R. 97, refd to. [paras. 74, 143].

MacBain v. Canadian Human Rights Commission et al., [1985] 1 F.C. 856; 62 N.R. 117 (F.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 78, 150].

MacBain v. Lederman - see MacBain v. Canadian Human Rights Commission et al.

Sethi v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1988] 2 F.C. 552; 87 N.R. 389 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 78].

Mohammad (M.M.I.) v. Minister of Em­ployment and Immigration, [1989] 2 F.C. 363; 91 N.R. 121 (F.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 78, 151].

Consolidated Bathurst Packaging Ltd. v. International Woodworkers of America, Local 2-69 and Labour Relations Board (Ont.), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 282; 105 N.R. 161; 38 O.A.C. 321; 68 D.L.R.(4th) 524; 90 C.L.L.C. 14,007; 42 Admin. L.R. 1, refd to. [para. 79].

Committee for Justice and Liberty Foun­dation et al. v. National Energy Board et al., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369; 9 N.R. 115; 68 D.L.R.(3d) 716, refd to. [paras. 81, 145].

Dayco (Canada) Ltd. v. National Automo­bile Aerospace and Agricultural Imple­ment Workers Union of Canada (CAW - Canada), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 230; 152 N.R. 1; 63 O.A.C. 1; 102 D.L.R.(4th) 609; 93 C.L.L.C. 14,032, refd to. [para. 119].

Immeubles Port Louis Ltée v. Lafontaine (Village), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 326; 121 N.R. 323; 38 Q.A.C. 253, refd to. [para. 133].

Osenton (Charles) & Co. v. Johnston, [1942] A.C. 130, refd to. [para. 141].

Friends of the Oldman River Society v. Canada (Minister of Transport and Min­ister of Fisheries and Oceans), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 3; 132 N.R. 321; [1992] 2 W.W.R. 193; 88 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 141].

Syndicat des employés de production du Québec et de l'Acadie v. Commission canadienne des droits de la personne et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 879; 100 N.R. 241; 62 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 146].

Couture (Alex) Inc. et autres v. Canada (Procureur général) et autres (1991), 41 Q.A.C. 1; 83 D.L.R.(4th) 577 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused, [1992] 2 S.C.R. v; 141 N.R. 346; 52 Q.A.C. 160, refd to. [para. 149].

Alex Couture Inc. - see Couture (Alex) Inc.

Statutes Noticed:

Assessment Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 21, generally [para. 99].

Assessment Act, R.S.N. 1990, c. A-18, generally [para. 99].

Assessment Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. A-14, generally [para. 99].

Assessment Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 23, generally [para. 99].

Assessment Appeal Board Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. A-46, generally [para. 99].

Assessment Review Board Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A-32, generally [para. 99].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 11(d) [paras. 62, 78].

Cities and Towns Act, R.S.Q. 1964, c. 193, generally [paras. 24, 123].

Code of Civil Procedure (Que.), art. 33 [para. 133].

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 18(1), sect. 18.1(1) [para. 7]; sect. 18.1(3) [paras. 7, 30]; sect. 18.1(4) [para. 7]; sect. 18.3(1) [para. 58]; sect. 18.4 [para. 7]; sect. 18.5 [paras. 7, 48]; sect. 24 [para. 7]; sect. 24(1) [para. 49]; sect. 26(1) [para. 7].

Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985 (4th Supp.), c. 17, sect. 2(1) [para. 7]; sect. 83 [para. 7 et seq.].

Indian Act Regulations (Can.), Matsqui Indian Band Bylaws, Establishment of Courts of Revision Bylaw, sect. 27 [para. 88]; sect. 32, sect. 35, sect. 49(A) [para. 89]; Schedule 10 [para. 89].

Indian Act Regulations (Can.), Siska Indian Band Bylaws, Assessment Bylaw, sect. 40 [para. 90]; sect. 41 [para. 112]; sect. 41(4) [para. 95]; sect. 45(1) [para. 91].

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, sect. 2(1) [para. 7]; sect. 2(1)(a) [para. 51].

Island Regulatory and Appeals Commis­sion Act, S.P.E.I. 1991, c. 18, generally [para. 99].

Matsqui Indian Band Bylaws - see Indian Act Regu­lations (Can.).

Municipal Board Act, S.S. 1988-89, c. M-23.2, generally [para. 99].

Municipal Taxation Act, S.Q. 1979, c. 72, generally [para. 99].

Siska Indian Band Bylaws - see Indian Act Regulations (Can.).

Authors and Works Noticed:

Indian Taxation Advisory Board, Introduc­tion to Real Property Taxation on Reserve (1990), p. 23 [para. 74].

Counsel:

Arthur Pape and Alisa Noda, for the ap­pellants, Matsqui Indian Band and Mats­qui Indian Band Council;

John L. Finlay and Fiona C.M. Anderson, for the appellants, the other Indian Bands and Councils;

Norman D. Mullins, Q.C., and W.A.S. Macfarlane, for the respondents;

Leslie J. Pinder, for the intervener.

Solicitors of Record:

Pape & Salter, Vancouver, British Colum­bia, for the appellants, Matsqui Indian Band and Matsqui Indian Band Council;

Cooper & Associates, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the appellants, the other Indian Bands and Councils;

Canadian Pacific Legal Services, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondents;

Mandell, Pinder, Vancouver, British Col­umbia, for the intervener.

This appeal was heard on October 11, 1994, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered in both official languages on January 26, 1995, including the following opinions:

Lamer, C.J.C. (Cory, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 106;

La Forest, J. - see paragraphs 107 to 108;

Major, J. (McLachlin, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 109 to 137;

Sopinka, J., dissenting (L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and Iacobucci, JJ., concur­ring) - see paragraphs 138 to 154.