Williams v. Minister of National Revenue, (1990) 109 N.R. 223 (FCA)

• Judge: Pratte, Heald and Stone, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: June 13, 1990
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1990), 109 N.R. 223 (FCA)

Williams v. MNR (1990), 109 N.R. 223 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

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

(A-7-89)

Indexed As: Williams v. Minister of National Revenue

Federal Court of Appeal

Pratte, Heald and Stone, JJ.A.

June 13, 1990.

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 allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the Trial Division and referred the matter to the Minister for reassessment on the basis that the regular unemployment insurance benefits were taxable, but the enhanced portion of the benefits was exempt from income tax.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 823

Personal or legal rights - Property exempt from alienation - Situated on a reserve - Meaning of - The Federal Court of Appeal held that regular unemployment insurance benefits received by a reserve Indian were not "property situated on a reserve" within the meaning of s. 87(b) of the Indian Act and therefore the benefits were not exempt from income tax - See paragraphs 6 to 17 - The court held however that enhanced benefits received by a reserve Indian while working on an unemployment insurance job creation project on the reserve were exempt from income tax under s. 90(1)(b) of the Indian Act - See paragraphs 18 to 23.

Income Tax - Topic 2053

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

Cases Noticed:

Williams v. Minister of National Revenue, [1989] 2 F.C. 318; 24 F.T.R. 169 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 1, footnote 1].

R. v. National Indian Brotherhood, [1979] 1 F.C. 103 (T.D.), consd. [para. 6 et seq.].

Nowegijick v. Minister of National Revenue et al., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 29; 46 N.R. 41, consd. [para. 6 et seq., footnote 6].

Commissioner of Stamps v. Hope, [1891] A.C. 476 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 12].

New York Life Insurance Company v. Public Trustee, [1924] 2 Ch. 101 (C.A), refd to. [paras. 12, 13, 16, footnote 11].

Kwok Chi Leung Karl v. Commissioner of Estate Duty, [1988] 1 W.L.R. 1035, refd to. [para. 12, footnote 9].

English Scottish and Australian Bank Limited v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue, [1932] A.C. 238 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 12, 16, footnotes 9, 12].

Alloway v. Phillips (Inspector of Taxes), [1980] 3 All E.R. 138 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote 9].

Re Banque des Marchands de Moscou (Koupetschesky), [1954] 2 All E.R. 746 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13, footnote 10].

Saugeen Indian Band et al. v. Minister of National Revenue (Customs and Excise) (1990), 104 N.R. 201 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 21, footnote 13].

Metlakatla Ferry Service Ltd. v. R. in Right of British Columbia (1987), 12 B.C.L.R.(2d) 308 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 21, footnote 13].

Mitchell and Milton Management Ltd. v. Sandy Bay Indian Band et al., [1983] 5 W.W.R. 117 (Man. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 21, footnote 14].

Statutes Noticed:

Income Tax Act, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63, sect. 81(1)(a) [para. 1, footnotes 2, 3].

Indian Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-6, sect. 87 [para. 18]; sect. 87(b) [paras. 1, 6-17, footnotes 4, 6]; sect. 90 [para. 1, footnote 4]; sect. 90(1)(b) [paras. 1, 4, 18-22, footnote 4].

Employment and Immigration Reorganization Act, S.C. 1976-77, c. 54, sect. 10, sect. 11 [para. 8, footnote 8].

Unemployment Insurance Act, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 48, sect. 38 [paras. 2, 3, 19, 20, 21, footnote 5].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Castel, Canadian Conflict of Laws (2nd Ed.), pp. 401, 402 [para. 12, footnote 9].

Cheshire and North, Private International Law (10th Ed. 1979), pp. 536 et seq. [paras. 6, 8]; 538 [para. 11].

Cheshire, Private International Law (7th Ed.), pp. 420 et seq. [paras. 6, 11].

Counsel:

Ian MacGregor, Q.C., and Sandra Phillips, for the appellant;

Gary Snarch and Tara Winintjes, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Snarch and 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 in Ottawa, Ontario, on May 15, 1990, before Stone, Pratte and Heald, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal.

The decision of the court was delivered on June 13, 1990, by Stone, J.A.