Williams v. Minister of National Revenue,

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Judge: Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Stevenson, JJ.
• Citation: (1992), 136 N.R. 161 (SCC),[1992] 3 CNLR 181,41 CCEL 1,[1992] SCJ No 36 (QL),53 FTR 104,1992 CanLII 98 (SCC),[1992] 1 CTC 225,46 DTC 6320,90 DLR (4th) 129,[1992] 1 SCR 877,136 NR 161
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Date: 10 October 1991

Williams v. MNR (1992), 136 N.R. 161 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Glenn Williams (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(No. 22116)

Indexed As: Williams v. Minister of National Revenue

Supreme Court of Canada

La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka,

Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and

Stevenson, JJ.

April 16, 1992.

Summary:

An Indian who resided on a reserve received unemployment insurance benefits in 1984. The Minister of National Revenue assessed income tax on the benefits. The benefits included regular unemployment insurance benefits and enhanced benefits which the Indian received while working on an unemployment insurance job creation project on the reserve. The Indian appealed the assessment, arguing that the benefits were exempt from taxation pursuant to ss. 87 and 90(1)(b) of the Indian Act.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a decision reported 24 F.T.R. 169, allowed the Indian's appeal. The court held that the benefits, including the enhanced benefits, were exempt from income taxation under s. 87 of the Indian Act, because the benefits were personal property belonging to the Indian which were situated on the reserve. The court held further that the enhanced benefits were also exempt under s. 90(1)(b) of the Indian Act, because they were paid in accordance with the Unem­ployment Insurance Act and an agreement between the federal Crown and the Indian band. The Minister of National Revenue appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 109 N.R. 223, allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the Trial Division and referred the matter to the Minister for assessment on the basis that the regular unemployment insurance benefits were taxable, but the enhanced portion of the benefits was exempt from income tax. The Indian appealed and the Minister of National Revenue cross-appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and dismissed the cross-appeal. In the result the court held that all the unem­ployment insurance benefits in question were exempt from taxation.

Income Tax - Topic 2053

Other sources of income - Unemployment insurance benefits - Indians - [See both Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 823].

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 823

Personal or legal rights - Property exempt from alienation - Situated on a reserve - Meaning of - Section 87 of the Indian Act provided that the personal property of an Indian or band situated on a reserve was exempt from taxation - The Supreme Court of Canada set out the proper test for determining when property is situated on a reserve - See paragraphs 33 to 38.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 823

Personal or legal rights - Property exempt from alienation - Situated on a reserve - Meaning of - An Indian who resided on a reserve received regular unemployment insurance benefits and enhanced benefits while working on an unemployment insur­ance job creation project on the reserve - The Supreme Court of Canada held that all the unemployment insurance benefits received were personal property situated on the reserve within the meaning of s. 87 of the Indian Act and were therefore exempt from income taxation, notwith­standing s. 56(1)(a)(iv) of the Income Tax Act.

Cases Noticed:

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; 3 C.N.L.R. 46, refd to. [para. 16].

Nowegijick v. Minister of National Rev­enue et al., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 29; 46 N.R. 41; 83 D.T.C. 5041, refd to. [para. 21 et seq.].

R. v. National Indian Brotherhood, [1979] 1 F.C. 103 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 25 et seq.].

New York Life Insurance Co. v. Public Trustee, [1924] 2 Ch. 101, refd to. [para. 27].

Tétreault-Gadoury v. Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 22; 126 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 44].

YMHA Jewish Community Centre of Winnipeg Inc. v. Brown and Labour Board (Man.), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1532; 97 N.R. 161; 59 Man.R.(2d) 161, refd to. [para. 59].

Statutes Noticed:

Employment and Immigration Department and Commission Act, S.C. 1976-77, c. 54, sect. 11 [para. 40].

Income Tax Act, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63, sect. 56(1)(a)(iv) [para. 14 et seq.].

Indian Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-6, sect. 87 [para. 1 et seq.]; sect. 89 [para. 14 et seq.]; sect. 90 [para. 9 et seq.].

Unemployment Insurance Act, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 48, sect. 38 [para. 6]; sect. 38(3) [para. 57].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Castel, J.G., Canadian Conflict of Laws (2nd Ed. 1986), pp. 401 [paras. 28, 31]; 402 [para. 31].

Cheshire, G.C., and P.M. North, Private International Law (11th Ed. 1987), gen­erally [para. 27]; pp. 804, 805 [para. 31].

Dicey, A.V., and J.H.C. Morris, The Con­flict of Laws (11th Ed. 1987), vol. 2, p. 908 [para. 28].

Counsel:

G.S. Snarch and T.R. Wintjes, for the appellant;

David Sgayias, Q.C., and Bonnie F. Moon, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Snarch & Allen, Vancouver, British Co­lumbia, for the appellant;

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

This appeal was heard on October 10, 1991, before La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Stevenson, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The following decision of the court was delivered in both official languages on April 16, 1992, by Gonthier, J.