Erasmus et al. v. Minister of National Revenue, (1992) 145 N.R. 321 (FCA)

• Judge: Pratte, MacGuigan and Desjardins, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: January 10, 1992
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1992), 145 N.R. 321 (FCA)

Erasmus v. MNR (1992), 145 N.R. 321 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant/defendant) v. William Erasmus, Felix Lockhart, Gerry Cheezie, Helen Hardisty, Ethel Liske, Angeline Villebrun, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of the employees of the Dene Nation and the Dene Nation (respondents/plaintiffs)

(A-576-91)

Indexed As: Erasmus et al. v. Minister of National Revenue

Federal Court of Appeal

Pratte, MacGuigan and

Desjardins, JJ.A.

March 30, 1992.

Summary:

Erasmus et al. were Indians employed by the Dene Nation. They were paid with monies received by the Dene Nation under certain agreements from the Crown. One of the Indians attended university with grants from the Dene Nation paid from monies supplied by the Crown for that purpose. Most of the Indians lived on lands set aside for their bands under the Territorial Lands Act and worked for the benefit of the band members. The Indians paid income tax on the monies received from the Dene Nation. The Indians applied for a declaration that the income was exempt from income tax and an order that any monies collected as income tax be repaid. The Crown applied to have the Indians' statement of claim struck out or summarily dismissed.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, dismissed the application. The Crown appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the application in part.

Note: For a related decision see 45 F.T.R. 104.

Courts - Topic 4049

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Income tax matters - [See Practice - Topic 2241 ].

Courts - Topic 4054

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Indians - [See Practice - Topic 2241 ].

Practice - Topic 865

Practice - Striking out parties - Lack of cause of action - Six Indians were employed by the Dene Nation - The Indians submitted that the income was exempt from income tax - The Indians applied for a declaration that the income was exempt and for an order that it to be refunded - The Indians brought the action in their own names, the name of the Dene Nation and on behalf of all the unnamed employees of the Dene Nation - The Crown applied to have the unnamed employees and the Dene Nation struck out as parties because the claims in question related only to income earned by the named parties in the past - The Federal Court of Appeal declined to strike those parties from the proceedings - See para­graph 7.

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose a cause of action - Six Indians received income from the Dene Nation either as income from employment or as grants and scholarships for educational purposes - The Indians paid income tax on the money - The Indians later applied under the Federal Court Act for a declaration that the income was exempt from income tax - Lands set aside under the Territorial Lands Act were reserves - Income earned on a reserve through employment for the benefit of the Indians living there was exempt income - The Federal Court of Appeal struck out that portion of the statement of claim based on the reserve exemption - See paragraphs 16 to 18.

Practice - Topic 2241

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Lack of jurisdiction - Six Indians received income from the Dene Nation - The Indians paid income tax on the money - The Indians never challenged the assessments under the provisions of the Income Tax Act - The Indians later applied for a declaration under the Federal Court Act that the income was exempt from income tax - The Crown applied to have the application struck out on the ground, inter alia, that s. 29 of the Federal Court Act deprived that court of jurisdic­tion when another Act (i.e., the Income Tax Act) provided the plaintiff with a remedy in another forum (i.e., the Tax Court) - The Federal Court of Appeal held the Federal Court had jurisdiction - See paragraphs 9 to 14.

Cases Noticed:

Hay River (Town) v. R. and Sanfrère, [1980] 1 F.C. 262 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 16, footnote 4].

R. v. Drybones, [1970] S.C.R. 282, refd to. [para. 16, footnote 4].

R. v. National Indian Brotherhood, [1979] 1 F.C. 103 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 17, footnote 5].

Nowegijick v. Minister of National Reve­nue et al., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 29; 46 N.R. 41, refd to. [para. 17, footnote 5].

Williams v. Minister of National Revenue, [1990] 3 F.C. 169; 109 N.R. 223; 90 D.T.C. 6399 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 17, footnote 5].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Court Rules, rule 29 [para. 10, footnote 2]; rule 419 [para. 1]; rule 419(1)(a), rule 419(2) [para. 9, footnote 1].

Income Tax Act, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63, sect. 152 [para. 4]; sect. 152(8) [para. 12]; sect. 164 [para. 15, footnote 3].

Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-5, sect. 2, sect. 87, sect. 90 [para. 2].

Rules of Court, Federal Court - see Fed­eral Court Rules.

Territorial Lands Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-6 [para. 2 et seq.].

Counsel:

P. Partridge, for the appellant;

J.F. Sayers, for the respondents.

Solicitors of Record:

John C. Tait, Q.C., Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant;

Judith F. Sayers, Port Alberni, British Columbia, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard in Vancouver, British Columbia, on January 10, 1992, by Pratte, MacGuigan and Desjardins, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered in Ottawa, Ontario, on March 30, 1992, by Pratte, J.A.