Mitchell and Milton Management Ltd. v. Peguis Indian Band et al., (1990) 110 N.R. 241 (SCC)

• Judge: Dickson, C.J.C., Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and Gonthier, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: February 24, 1989
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1990), 110 N.R. 241 (SCC);71 DLR (4th) 193;[1990] 3 CNLR 46;67 Man R (2d) 81;[1990] 5 WWR 97;[1990] 2 SCR 85;[1990] SCJ No 63 (QL);1990 CanLII 117 (SCC);[1990] ACS no 63;[1990] CarswellMan 209;110 NR 241

Mitchell v. Peguis Indian Band (1990), 110 N.R. 241 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Donald George Mitchell and Milton Management Ltd. v. Peguis Indian Band, Louis J. Stevenson, Albert Thompson, Oliver Sutherland, Ronald Williams and Robert Sutherland, as the Chief and Councillors, respectively, of the Band

(19439)

Indexed As: Mitchell and Milton Management Ltd. v. Peguis Indian Band et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, C.J.C., Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and Gonthier, JJ.

June 21, 1990.

Summary:

The plaintiffs brought an action against the defendant Indian bands to recover money which they claimed the bands owed them for services rendered in negotiating a sales tax rebate with the Manitoba government. Before judgment the plaintiffs obtained a garnishing order attaching the monies due by the government to the Indians. One of the Indian bands applied to set aside the garnishing order on the ground that the money to be paid by the government was personal property of an Indian or a band situated on a reserve and by reason of ss. 89(1) and 90(1)(b) of the Indian Act was not subject to attachment by way of garnishing order.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported in [1983] 5 W.W.R. 117; [1983] 4 C.N.L.R. 50; 22 Man.R.(2d) 286, held that the money was not subject to garnishment, but allowed the garnishing order to stand for 30 days so the plaintiffs could attempt to garnish other funds owed by the government to the Indian bands. The plaintiffs appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal, in a decision reported [1986] 2 W.W.R. 477; [1985] 2 C.N.L.R. 90; 39 Man.R.(2d) 180, dismissed the appeal. The plaintiffs appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 4928

Property - Situs of personalty - Debts - Dickson, C.J.C., of the Supreme Court of Canada stated that the situs of a debt was the location of the debtor - See paragraph 105.

Creditors and Debtors - Topic 4311

Garnishment by creditor - Garnishee order and priorities - Claims against Crown - Wilson, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada generally discussed the Crown's immunity from garnishment - See paragraphs 74 to 84.

Creditors and Debtors - Topic 4349

Garnishment by creditor - Property liable to garnishment - Money to persons "employed or paid by the government" - Manitoba agreed to a sales tax rebate to several Manitoba Indian bands - The Garnishment Act (Man.), s. 3, stated that the Manitoba government could be garnished with respect to money due "persons employed or paid by the government" - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the rebate could not be garnished - The court held that the phrase "moneys due or accruing due to persons employed or paid by the government" referred only to debts of the government arising pursuant to agreements relating to the provision of work or services - Here, the repayment did not constitute such an agreement - See paragraphs 63 to 67, 79, 85.

Creditors and Debtors - Topic 4405

Garnishment by creditor - Exemptions - Indian property - Manitoba agreed to a sales tax rebate to several Manitoba Indian bands - The Supreme Court of Canada, for differing reasons, affirmed that the right of the bands to be paid the funds constituted personal property of the bands situated on a reserve and the funds were protected from garnishment by virtue of the combined effect of ss. 89(1) and 90(1)(b) of the Indian Act - See paragraphs 5 to 13, 50 to 51, 71, 106 to 122.

Crown - Topic 2

Indivisibility of Crown - Dickson, C.J.C., of the Supreme Court of Canada commented on the divisibility of the Crown in Canada - See paragraph 108.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 821

Personal or legal rights - Property exempt from alienation - General - La Forest, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada discussed the history of s. 89 of the Indian Act, which shielded the real and personal property of an Indian or band situated on a reserve from ordinary civil process - He similarly discussed s. 90 of the Act, which deemed certain personal property always to be situated on a reserve - See paragraphs 17 to 23.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 822

Personal or legal rights - Property exempt from alienation - Personal property - What constitutes - [See Creditors and Debtors - Topic 4405].

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 823

Personal or legal rights - Property exempt from alienation - On a reserve - Meaning of - [See Creditors and Debtors - Topic 4405].

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 4410

Treaties and proclamations - Interpretation - The Supreme Court of Canada (per Dickson, C.J.C., and La Forest, J.), discussed the principles that (1) treaties and statutes relating to Indians should be liberally construed and ambiguities resolved in favour of the Indians and (2) aboriginal understanding of words and concepts in Indian treaties should be preferred over legalistic and technical constructions - See paragraphs 53 to 54, 98 to 101.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6510

Taxation - Exemption - Personalty on reserve - La Forest, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada discussed the history of s. 87 of the Indian Act, which conferred a tax exemption on Indians with respect to their interest in reserve lands or surrendered lands and their personal property situated on a reserve - See paragraphs 15 to 16.

Words and Phrases

Agreement - The Supreme Court of Canada, and particularly Dickson, C.J.C., discussed the meaning of the word "agreement" as found in s. 90(1)(b) of the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-6 - See paragraphs 63 to 67, 79, 85, 127 to 130.

Words and Phrases

Her Majesty - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the words "Her Majesty" in s. 90(1) of the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-6, referred only to the federal Crown - The court acknowledged that an unqualified reference to "Her Majesty" in a federal statute could refer to the provincial Crown as well, but not in this case - Dickson, C.J.C., preferred the opposite result - See paragraphs 5 to 13, 50 to 51, 71, 106 to 122.

Words and Phrases

Personal property - The Supreme Court of Canada, and specifically Dickson, C.J.C., held that the words "personal property" as found in s. 90(1)(b) of the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-6, included intangible property such as the right to payment of money - See paragraphs 63 to 67, 79, 85, 125.

Words and Phrases

Was ... given - The Supreme Court of Canada, and specifically Dickson, C.J.C., held that the words "was ... given" as found in s. 90(1)(b) of the Indian Act, meant that actual money need not be paid - See paragraph 126.

Cases Noticed:

Greyeyes v. The Queen, [1978] 2 F.C. 385 (T.D.), refd to. [paras. 8, 125].

Attorney General for Quebec v. Nipissing Central Railway Co., [1926] A.C. 715, consd. [paras. 10, 114].

Nickel Rim Mines Ltd. v. Attorney General for Ontario, [1967] S.C.R. 672, consd. [paras. 10, 109].

Guerin v. Canada, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335; 55 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 20].

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Paul, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 654; 89 N.R. 325, refd to. [para. 20].

Bryan v. Itasca County (1976), 426 U.S. 373, refd to. [para. 21].

Francis v. The Queen, [1956] S.C.R. 618, consd. [para. 24].

Leonard v. R. in Right of British Columbia (1984), 52 B.C.L.R. 389; leave to appeal refused [1984] 2 S.C.R. viii; 57 N.R. 161, consd. [para. 25].

Leighton v. B.C. (Gov't), [1989] 3 C.N.L.R. 136, consd. [para. 26].

Metlakatla Ferry Service Ltd. v. B.C. (Gov't.) (1987), 12 B.C.L.R.(2d) 308 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 26, 124].

Bank of Nova Scotia v. Blood, [1990] 1 C.N.L.R. 16; 97 A.R. 317, refd to. [para. 27].

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

R. v. Eldorado Nuclear Limited; R. v. Uranium Canada Limited, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 551; 50 N.R. 120, refd to. [para. 80].

Liquidators of the Maritime Bank v. Receiver General of New Brunswick, [1892] A.C. 437, refd to. [para. 108].

R. v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Ex parte Indian Association of Alberta, [1982] 1 Q.B. 892, refd to. [para. 108].

CNCP Telecommunications v. Alberta Government Telephones and CRTC, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 225; 98 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 111].

Brown v. R. in Right of British Columbia, [1979] 3 C.N.L.R. 67 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 124].

Mintuck v. Valley River Band 63A, [1978] 2 W.W.R. 159 (Man. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 125].

R. v. National Indian Brotherhood, [1979] 1 F.C. 103 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 125].

Fricke and Seaton Timber Ltd. v. Mitchell (1985), 67 B.C.L.R. 227 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 125].

Fayerman Bros. Ltd. v. Peter Ballantyne Indian Band, [1986] 1 C.N.L.R. 6; 36 Sask.R. 76 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 125].

Williams v. Minister of National Revenue, [1989] 1 C.N.L.R. 184; 24 F.T.R. 169 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 125].

Statutes Noticed:

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 91(24) [paras. 13, 51, 113].

Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 35 [para. 121].

Garnishment Act, R.S.M. 1970, c. G-20; C.C.S.M., c. G-20, generally [paras. 64, 71]; sect. 3 [paras. 66-67, 73-74, 78, 80, 92, 94, 103].

Indian Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-6, sect. 18 [paras. 6, 113]; sect. 32 [para. 47]; sect. 35(1) [paras. 6, 113]; sect. 37 [paras. 6, 19, 113]; sect. 38 [paras. 6, 113]; sect. 39 [paras. 6, 19, 113]; sect. 40, sect. 41 [paras. 6, 113]; sect. 87 [paras. 4, 14-16, 21-22, 24, 27, 29-30, 37, 42-43, 57-58, 60, 64-65, 101, 124, 130]; sect. 88 [paras. 65, 92]; sect. 89 [paras. 4, 14, 17, 21-22, 27-30, 37, 42-43, 57-58, 60, 65, 86, 88, 93, 101-102, 106, 131]; sect. 90(1) [paras. 4, 13-14, 87, 105, 113, 125]; sect. 90(1)(a) [paras. 6, 95, 113, 125]; sect. 90(1)(b) [paras. 1, 3, 5-10, 14, 29-30, 32, 34-36, 39, 41-46, 48-51, 56-60, 63, 70-71, 88, 92-95, 97, 106, 113, 120, 122-123, 125-127, 131]; sect. 90(2) [paras. 45-46, 48-50]; sect. 90(3) [paras. 49-50]; sect. 91, sect. 92, sect. 93 [para. 47]; sect. 114(1) [paras. 6, 113].

Indian Act, S.C. 1876, c. 18, sect. 25 [para. 19]; sect. 64 [paras. 16-17]; sect. 65 [para. 16]; sect. 66 [para. 17]; sect. 69 [para. 18].

Indian Act, S.C. 1951, c. 29, sect. 90 [para. 18].

Indians in Upper Canada, An Act for the Protection of, from Imposition, and the Property Occupied or Enjoyed by Them from Trespass and Injury, S.C. 1850, c. 74, sect. 4 [para. 15].

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-23, sect. 28 [para. 111].

Order-in-Council (Man.), No. 253 [paras. 91, 128].

Proceedings Against the Crown Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. P-140; C.C.S.M., c. P-140, sect. 16(6) [para. 77].

Royal Proclamation of 1763 [paras. 20, 22].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bartlett, Indians and Taxation in Canada (2nd Ed. 1987), generally [para. 15]; p. 46 [para. 18].

Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1876), 1 Kerr 214-215 [para. 76].

British Columbia Law Reform Commission, Report on Attachment of Debts Act (1978), p. 53 [para. 82].

Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada (2nd Ed.), pp. 216, 217 [para. 108].

Hogg, Liability of the Crown (2nd Ed. 1989), pp. 52-53 [para. 83]; 53 [para. 78].

New Brunswick Dept. of Justice, Law Reform Division, Third Report of the Consumer Protection Project, vol. 2, Legal Remedies of the Unsecured Creditor After Judgment (1976), p. 39 [para. 82].

Ontario Law Reform Commission, Report on the Enforcement of Judgment Debts and Related Matters (1981), pp. 146 [paras. 77, 82]; 147 [para. 82].

Ontario Law Reform Commission, Report on the Liability of the Crown (1989), pp. 2-3, 6 [para. 81]; 88 [para. 83].

Slattery, Understanding Aboriginal Rights (1987), 66 Can. Bar Rev. 727, p. 753 [para. 20].

Counsel:

Paul R. Anderson and Kenneth G. Houston, Q.C., for the appellants;

Paul B. Forsyth, for the respondents.

Solicitors of Record:

Houston & MacIver, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the appellants;

Skwark, Myers, Kussin, Weinstein, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard before Dickson, C.J.C., Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and Gonthier, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada on February 24, 1989. The decision of the Supreme Court was delivered on June 21, 1990 in both official languages, when the following opinions were filed:

La Forest, J. (Sopinka and Gonthier, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 68;

Wilson, J. (Lamer and L'Heureux-Dubé, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 69 to 85;

Dickson, C.J.C. - see paragraphs 86 to 132.