Date: 19980623
Docket: 92-2735-IT-G
BETWEEN:
GEORGE DESNOMIE,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Reasons for Judgment
ARCHAMBAULT, J.T.C.C.
[1] Mr. George Desnomie is appealing a reassessment issued by
the Minister of National Revenue (Minister) with respect
to the 1989 taxation year. Mr. Desnomie, an Indian within
the meaning of the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-5,
claimed an exemption pursuant to paragraph 81(1)(a) of the
Income Tax Act (Act) and pursuant to
sections 87 and 90 of the Indian Act.
[2] The main issue in this case is whether Mr.
Desnomie’s employment income constitutes personal property
situated on a reserve within the meaning of section 87 of the
Indian Act.
Facts
[3] The parties filed an Agreed Statement of Facts which I
reproduce here:
AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The Appellant, George Desnomie (“Desnomie”), is
an Indian within the meaning of the Indian Act (Canada),
R.S.C. 1985, c. I-5.
2. During the 1989 taxation year Desnomie was employed as the
Executive Director of the Manitoba Indian Education Association
(the “MIEA”).
3. The MIEA is a non-profit, non-commercial organization, the
purpose of which is to preserve and advance the education goals
of Indian people and to otherwise assist the social, cultural and
economic development of Indian people in Manitoba.
4. The MIEA was incorporated without share capital by Articles
of Incorporation dated October 16, 1981.
5. In 1989, the registered office of the MIEA was located in
the City of Winnipeg.
6. At the time the MIEA was incorporated, the Federal
Government was in the process of transferring responsibility for
the provision of Indian student assistance from the Department of
Indian and Northern Development (“DIAND”) to Indians.
The MIEA was established to facilitate such transfer, and was
incorporated at the instance of the Federal Government.
7. The members of the MIEA are the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs
and certain Indian Bands in the Province of Manitoba, all of
which are resident on reserve land in Manitoba.
8. During 1989 the participating members of the MIEA included
the following Indian Bands and Tribal Councils: the Keewatin
Tribal Council, Western Region Tribal Council, Interlake Tribal
Division for Schools, Dakota Ojibway Tribal Council, Fisher River
Band, Cross Lake Band, Norway House Band, Keeseekoowenin Band,
Moose Lake Band, Red Sucker Lake Band, Fort Alexander Band, and
Little Saskatchewan Band. The said Bands were located in various
parts of Manitoba.
9. The MIEA is controlled by a Board of Directors (the
“Board”) elected by the members. During the relevant
time, the Board was comprised of approximately seven individuals,
each of whom was an Indian within the meaning of the Indian
Act (Canada) and was resident on a reserve.
10. The articles of the MIEA provide that:
“The undertaking of the corporation is restricted to the
following:
To promote, advance and protect the interests of the
membership and to do all things that are lawful, incidental and
conducive to the attainment of the undertaking of the
corporation; and, in particular, to preserve and advance the
education goals of Indian people in a manner consistent with the
direction adopted from time to time by the Indian Chiefs of
Manitoba; to provide leadership and organizational support to
Indian Bands and Indian Associations in the field of education;
to compile and disseminate information to the Indian community on
developments in the field of education; to identify areas for
study and conduct research on Indian education matters; to assist
in the planning and coordination of local control of Indian
education in a matter [sic] consistent with the direction
established by individual Indian Bands or Indian School Board
authorities; and to organize, coordinate and provide Indian
student services as delegated from time to time by an individual
Indian Band, Tribal Council or education authority in the
Province of Manitoba.”
11. The MIEA Board passed a by-law (“By-Law No.1”)
relating to the transaction of the affairs of the MIEA on
November 27, 1981. By-Law No.1 was in effect at all times
material to this Appeal, and the MIEA conducted itself in
accordance with By-Law No.1 at all times material hereto.
12. At all times material hereto Desnomie lived in Winnipeg,
and worked at the MIEA’s Winnipeg office.
13. Desnomie was first employed by the MIEA (or its
predecessor) in September of 1980 as an education counsellor.
After three years, he became the Director of Student Services. In
1987 he became the Executive Director of MIEA.
14. In his capacity as Executive Director, Desnomie was
responsible for the overall administration and financial
management of the MIEA, including the hiring and supervision of
staff and counsellors and the monitoring of spending. Desnomie
also acted as a liaison between the MIEA and those Indian Bands
and Tribal Councils which had designated the MIEA as their agent
for the provision of services to Indian students.
15. The MIEA paid Desnomie the sum of $41,375.54 in 1989.
16. The MIEA offered numerous services to Indian students
attending school off reserves including:
a) assistance in adjusting to City living;
b) arranging for financial support;
c) the provision of personal, financial, academic education
and career counselling; and
d) the provision of tutorial services.
17. The students to whom such services were provided were all
Indians within the meaning of the Indian Act (Canada).
18. Most schools located on reserves only provide education up
to Grade 10. There are no post-secondary institutions
located on reserves in Manitoba. There are three Universities in
Manitoba, two of which are located in the City of Winnipeg and
one in the City of Brandon. The largest community college in
Manitoba (Red River Community College) is located in the City of
Winnipeg. Private institutions such as Robertson Career College
and Herzing Career College only have establishments in the City
of Winnipeg.
19. Most, if not all, of the students to whom MIEA provided
services were individuals who left their reserves in order to
continue their education at institutions located off reserves,
primarily in the City of Winnipeg.
20. The MIEA’s administrative office was located in
Winnipeg because the majority of the students for whom it
provided services attended institutions located in Winnipeg.
21. By the terms of certain numbered Treaties concluded
between Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada and bands of
Indians in Manitoba, the Crown undertook to “... maintain
schools for instruction in such reserves hereby made as to Her
Government of the Dominion of Canada may seem advisable, whenever
the Indians of the reserve shall desire it” (Treaty No. 5),
or “... to maintain a school in the reserve allotted to
each band as they settle on said reserve ...” (Treaty No.
4). Other numbered Treaties contain similar wording in describing
the obligation of the federal government in respect of education
for Indians.
22. Administration funding for the payment of MIEA staff
salaries was provided by DIAND to MIEA pursuant to a Contribution
Arrangement under which MIEA agreed to administer the programs,
activities and contribution funds covered by the Contribution
Arrangement in the areas of education and resource and economic
and employment development.
23. By Notice of Reassessment dated March 11, 1991, the
Minister of National Revenue included the amount of $41,375.54 as
employment income of the Appellant for the 1989 taxation
year.
24. The Appellant duly filed a Notice of Objection to the
Reassessment of March 27, 1991.
25. The Minister confirmed the Reassessment by Notification of
Confirmation dated November 20, 1992. The Appellant filed a
Notice of Appeal on November 30, 1992 and an Amended notice of
Appeal on April 14, 1997. The Respondent filed a reply to the
original Notice of Appeal on February 16, 1993 and a reply to the
Amended Notice of Appeal on May 14, 1997.
[4] At the hearing, Mr. Desnomie testified in order to provide
further evidence. He stated that he was raised on the Peepeekisis
Indian Reserve situated 20 miles east of Fort Qu’Appelle in
Saskatchewan. Mr. Desnomie also described in greater detail some
of the work that he had performed in Winnipeg for the Manitoba
Indian Education Association Inc. (MIEA). One of the
services offered to native students was an emergency telephone
line to respond to their after-hours needs in Winnipeg. Mr.
Desnomie maintained contact — mainly by telephone —
with the various bands from which the students came.
[5] He also confirmed that the MIEA Board of Directors met
three times in 1989 and that all the meetings took place in
Winnipeg. Given the geographical dispersion of the various bands
across the province, it only made sense to meet in Winnipeg. The
closest reserve to Winnipeg was the Dakota Ojibway Reserve
situated 100 kilometres from Winnipeg.
Analysis
Section 87 of the Indian Act
[6] The most relevant statutory disposition for the purposes
of this appeal is section 87 of the Indian Act, which
reads as follows:
87. (1) Notwithstanding any other Act of Parliament or any Act
of the legislature of a province, but subject to section 83, the
following property is exempt from taxation, namely,
(a) the interest of an Indian or a band in reserve
lands or surrendered lands; and
(b) the personal property of an Indian or a band
situated on a reserve.
(2) No Indian or band is subject to taxation in respect of the
ownership, occupation, possession or use of any property
mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) or (b) or is
otherwise subject to taxation in respect of any such
property.
[7] Mr. Desnomie contends that his employment income earned in
1989 constitutes personal property situated on a reserve. It is
admitted that Mr. Desnomie is an Indian within the meaning
of the Indian Act, and the Supreme Court of Canada,
in Nowegijick v. The Queen, 83 DTC 5041, has recognized
that employment income constitutes personal property within the
meaning of paragraph 87(1)(b) of the Indian Act.
Therefore, the only issue is whether Mr. Desnomie’s
employment income is situated on a reserve.
[8] Determining where employment income is situated is not an
easy issue to resolve. At least one judge has stated that
employment income, which constitutes a chose in action, does not
really have a situs. See The Queen v. National Indian
Brotherhood, 78 DTC 6488, [1979] 1 F.C. 103
(F.C.T.D.) at 109. The approach that has to be followed by this
Court in determining where employment income is situated has been
described by Gonthier J. of the Supreme Court of Canada in
Williams v. The Queen, 92 DTC 6320 at 6326:[1]
The approach which best reflects these concerns is one which
analyzes the matter in terms of categories of property and types
of taxation. For instance, connecting factors may have different
relevance with regard to unemployment insurance benefits than in
respect of employment income, or pension benefits. The first
step is to identify the various connecting factors which are
potentially relevant. These factors should then be
analyzed to determine what weight they should be given in
identifying the location of the property, in light of three
considerations: (1) the purpose of the exemption under the
Indian Act; (2) the type of property in question; and (3)
the nature of the taxation of that property. The question
with regard to each connecting factor is therefore what weight
should be given that factor in answering the question whether to
tax that form of property in that manner would amount to the
erosion of the entitlement of the Indian qua Indian on a
reserve.
(Emphasis is mine.)
[9] The first step is to identify the various connecting
factors which are potentially relevant. In this particular case,
these factors would include: i) the residence of the employer;
ii) the residence of the employee; iii) the location where the
work is performed; and iv) the nature of the services performed
and the special circumstances in which they are performed.
i) Residence of employer
[10] Here, Mr. Desnomie’s employer is a non-profit
corporation whose head office is located in Winnipeg where its
main activities are carried on. The Board of Directors meets in
Winnipeg even though each member of that Board lives on a
reserve. The MIEA’s Executive Director lives and works in
Winnipeg. According to the standard criteria developed by the
courts, the residence of the employer is in Winnipeg.
ii) Residence of Mr. Desnomie
[11] Mr. Desnomie is an Indian who was raised on a reserve
situated in Saskatchewan. The Peepeekisis Band is not a member of
the MIEA. Mr. Desnomie has been living in Winnipeg since
1980. Winnipeg seems to be the centre of his life although he
calls his birthplace home. Mr. Desnomie clearly resides in
Winnipeg.
iii) Where the services were performed
[12] In his capacity as Executive Director, Mr. Desnomie is
responsible for the overall administration and financial
management of the MIEA. His employer’s head office and main
place of business is in Winnipeg. His employer’s clientele
resides in Winnipeg during the school year and the raison
d’être of the MIEA is to provide assistance,
guidance and counselling to native students attending school in
Winnipeg. Mr. Desnomie maintains close contact with the various
bands serviced by the MIEA but this is mainly done through
telephone conversations. Meetings of the Board take place in
Winnipeg. It is pretty clear that almost all Mr. Desnomie’s
services are performed in Winnipeg.[2]
iv) Special circumstances
[13] Pursuant to its obligation towards native people, the
federal government must maintain schools for instruction on
Indian reserves in Manitoba. The evidence disclosed that the
government has discharged this obligation by providing schools on
reserves up to grade 9 and, on some reserves, up to grade 10 or
11. Given the size of reserves, it is not surprising that native
students may have to attend school off their reserve to complete
high school and receive post-secondary education. It seems
obvious that such further education has to be provided to native
students in locations such as Winnipeg which offers both
secondary and post-secondary education.
[14] In 1981 the government’s functions in providing
student assistance to native people were transferred from the
Department of Indian Affairs to the MIEA, whose role it is to
assist the various native bands across the province in educating
their children. It receives its administration funding from the
DIAND. The clientele of the MIEA is made up exclusively of native
students most, if not all, of whom come from reserves.
[15] So the strongest factors connecting Mr. Desnomie’s
employment income to a “reserve” are the fact that
the people benefiting from his services come mostly from reserves
and the fact that funding for his salary comes from the federal
government in the discharge of its obligation to provide
education to natives on reserves.
[16] The last step, as stated by Gonthier J. in
Williams,supra, is to determine what weight is to
be placed on these various connecting factors. The weighing
process must be done in the light of three considerations: i) the
purpose of the exemption under the Indian Act; ii) the
type of property in question; and iii) the nature of the taxation
of that property.
[17] Dealing with the last two considerations, it should be
noted that Gonthier J. himself recognized in Williams
that they may not play an important role in determining the
weight that should be given to the connecting factors in
determining the situs of employment income for the
purposes of section 87 of the Indian Act. He stated at
page 6328:
In the context of unemployment insurance we were able to focus
on certain features of the scheme and its taxation implications
in order to establish one factor as having particular importance.
It is not clear whether this would be possible in the context of
employment income, or what features of employment income and its
taxation should be examined to that end.
The analysis of employment income is, in my view, important
for the purposes of determining to what extent the taxing of
income affects an Indian qua “Indian on a
reserve”.
[18] Employment income represents salary or remuneration paid
for services rendered by one person (an employee) to another (the
employer). Pursuant to subsection 5(1) of the Act,
employment income is taxable upon receipt by an employee. This
income can be distinguished from other income such as
unemployment insurance benefits which are aimed at providing
financial support to employees who are temporarily out of work.
Employment income is also different from social assistance
payments, scholarships and bursaries, which must be included in
income pursuant to subsection 56(1) of the Act. It is the
nature of salary that it is paid for a consideration, i.e. as
compensation for services rendered, while social assistance
payments and scholarships are in the nature of a gift given by
society to people in need.
[19] For most Canadians, employment income is their main
financial means of subsistence. Most people work in order to be
able to provide food and shelter for their family. In Mr.
Desnomie’s case, he is not living on a reserve. He has been
working and living in Winnipeg since at least 1980. In 1989, this
represented nine or ten years of living off a reserve. Taxing Mr.
Desnomie’s employment income in these circumstances does
not, in my view, erode his “entitlement [as an] Indian qua
Indian on a reserve”.
[20] I believe that the most important consideration that must
be taken into account in the weighing process is the purpose for
which section 87 was adopted. The best source for identifying
this purpose is the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in
Mitchell et al. v. Peguis Indian Band et al., [1990] 5
W.W.R. 97. This case dealt with restrictions on the mortgaging
and seizure of property and Mr. Justice La Forest provided an
excellent analysis of the history and the purpose of section 87
of the Indian Act. He said the following with respect to
sections 87 and 89 at pages 131-32.
I take it to be obvious that the protections afforded against
taxation and attachment by ss. 87 and 89 of the Indian Act
go hand-in-hand with these restraints on the
alienability of land. I noted above that the Crown, as part of
the consideration for the cession of Indian lands, often
committed itself to giving goods and services to the natives
concerned. Taking but one example, by terms of the
“numbered treaties” concluded between the Indians of
the prairie regions and part of the Northwest Territories, the
Crown undertook to provide Indians with assistance in such
matters as education, medicine and agriculture, and to furnish
supplies which Indians could use in the pursuit of their
traditional vocations of hunting, fishing and trapping. The
exemptions from taxation and distraint have historically
protected the ability of Indians to benefit from this property in
two ways. First, they guard against the possibility that one
branch of government, through the imposition of taxes, could
erode the full measure of the benefits given by that branch of
government entrusted with the supervision of Indian affairs.
Secondly, the protection against attachment ensures that the
enforcement of civil judgments by non-natives will not be allowed
to hinder Indians in the untrammelled enjoyment of such
advantages as they had retained or might acquire pursuant to the
fulfilment by the Crown of its treaty obligations. In effect,
these sections shield Indians from the imposition of the civil
liabilities that could lead, albeit through an indirect route, to
the alienation of the Indian land base through the medium of
foreclosure sales and the like; see Brennan J.’s
discussion of the purpose served by Indian tax immunities in the
American context in Bryan v. Itasca County, 426 U.S. 373
at 391, 48 L. Ed. 2d 710, 96 S. Ct. 2102 (1976).
In summary, the historical record makes it clear that
ss. 87 and 89 of the Indian Act, the sections to
which the deeming provision of s. 90 applies, constitute part of
a legislative “package” which bears the impress of an
obligation to native peoples which the Crown has recognized at
least since the signing of the Royal Proclamation of 1763. From
that time on, the Crown has always acknowledged that it
is honour-bound to shield Indians from any efforts by
non-natives to dispossess Indians of the property which they hold
qua Indians, i.e., their land base and the chattels on that land
base.
(Emphasis is mine.)
[21] Furthermore, La Forest J. also described what section 87
is not intended to achieve:
It is also important to underscore the corollary to the
conclusion I have just drawn. The fact that the modern-day
legislation, like its historical counterparts, is so careful to
underline that exemptions from taxation and distraint apply only
in respect of personal property situated on reserves demonstrates
that the purpose of the legislation is not to remedy the
economically disadvantaged position of Indians by ensuring that
Indians may acquire, hold and deal with property in the
commercial mainstream on different terms than their fellow
citizens. An examination of the decisions bearing on these
sections confirms that Indians who acquire and deal in
property outside lands reserved for their use deal with it on the
same basis as all other Canadians.
(Emphasis is mine.)
[22] The issue to be determined is: does the taxing of the
salary of a native who lives off a reserve, who works for an
employer residing off a reserve and who provides his services off
a reserve amount to, in the words of Gonthier J., an
“erosion of the entitlement of an Indian qua Indian on a
reserve” or, as is more explicitly stated by La Forest J.,
a dispossession of “property which [Indians] hold qua
Indians, i.e., their land base and the chattels on that land
base”? I do not think so. I believe that, in determining
what weight should be given in this particular case to the
factors outlined above, more weight should be given to the
residence of the employee, the location where the services were
provided and the place of business of the employer to whom they
were provided.
[23] The fact that the clientele of the employer was made up
of native students coming from reserves should not be given much
weight. Those native students were living off the reserve for at
least eight to ten months while they benefited from the services
provided to them by the MIEA. It should also be stressed that it
is Mr. Desnomie’s personal property that has to be
“situated on a reserve” and not the personal property
of native students. Expressed in a slightly different manner, the
“erosion of the entitlement of an Indian qua Indian on a
reserve” has to be determined by reference to the person
whose income is involved and not by reference to the different
reserves that are benefiting directly or indirectly from the
services of this person.
[24] Mr. Desnomie was working, like many other Canadians, in
the mainstream of a large urban centre. Many employees in
Winnipeg work in government at various levels, be it federal,
provincial, municipal or school. I think that
Mr. Desnomie’s situation fits the description in
Williams,supra, where Gonthier J. stated at
page 6324:
Therefore, under the Indian Act, an Indian has a choice
with regard to his personal property. The Indian may situate this
property on the reserve, in which case it is within the protected
area and free from seizure and taxation, or the Indian may
situate this property off the reserve, in which case it is
outside the protected area, and more fully available for ordinary
commercial purposes in society. Whether the Indian wishes to
remain within the protected reserve system or integrate more
fully into the larger commercial world is a choice left to the
Indian.
The purpose of the situs test in s. 87 is to determine
whether the Indian holds the property in question as part of the
entitlement of an Indian qua Indian on the reserve. Where
it is necessary to decide amongst various methods of fixing the
location of the relevant property, such a method must be selected
having regard to this purpose.
[25] Here, by accepting living for so many years in a city
like Winnipeg — at least eight years at the time of the
relevant taxation year and 18 years at the time of the hearing
— I believe that Mr. Desnomie has accepted living in an
environment where his property is not protected. Granting him the
exemption that he is seeking would be granting him a privilege
that his fellow citizens of Winnipeg do not enjoy while working
in that city.[3]
[26] In the recent decision of Henry Southwind v. The
Queen, dated January 14, 1998, file number A-760-95, the
Federal Court of Appeal concluded that the taxation of an Indian
residing on a reserve and earning business income from logging
activities carried on outside the reserve did not constitute an
erosion of his “entitlement qua Indian on a
reserve”.
[27] Before dealing with the second issue raised by Mr.
Desnomie, I should make a few comments on the decision rendered
by the Federal Court of Appeal in Folster v. The Queen, 97
DTC 5315, which was relied on by Mr. Desnomie’s counsel.
First, it should be remembered, as Linden J.A. stated at page
5324 that each case must be determined on its particular
facts:
... a central premise of Williams is that, in the final
analysis, the relative weighting of connecting factors must
proceed on a case by case basis.
[28] In Folster, supra, the situation was quite
different from the facts of this case. First, the taxpayer was
residing on a reserve. Her services as an employee were being
provided to a hospital which had been on a reserve, was relocated
on land adjacent to the reserve after a fire, and was in the
process of being annexed by the reserve.
[29] Furthermore, approximately 80% of the hospital’s
clients were status Indians who were presumably living on the
reserve. As stated by Linden J.A. who wrote the decision in
Folster, the employment of the taxpayer was
“intimately connected with the ... Reserve”. Here, we
do not have this intimate connection. The closest reserve, the
Dakota Ojibway reserve, was 100 kilometres away from
Winnipeg, while the furthest away, the Keewatin reserve, was
located so far north that an overnight airplane trip was required
to get to Winnipeg. Furthermore, unlike the clients of the
hospital in Folster, the students of the MIEA were away
from their reserve for 8 to 10 months. Finally, unlike
Mrs. Folster — and Mr. Williams in Williams
—, Mr. Desnomie was not living on the reserve that
benefited from his work.
Section 90 of the Indian Act
[30] Mr. Desnomie also relied on subsection 90(1) of the
Indian Act which deems any money given to an Indian or to
a band under a treaty or an agreement between a band and Her
Majesty to be always situated on a reserve. This subsection reads
as follows:
90. (1) For the purposes of sections 87 and 89,
personal property that was
(a) purchased by Her Majesty with Indian moneys or
moneys appropriated by Parliament for the use and benefit of
Indians or bands, or
(b) given to Indians or to a band under a treaty or
agreement between a band and Her Majesty,
shall be deemed always to be situated on a reserve.
[31] In my view, this subsection does not help Mr.
Desnomie’s case in this appeal. Mr. Desnomie’s salary
was not “purchased by Her Majesty”. His salary was
paid by the MIEA. The money paid to him was not
“given” to him pursuant to an agreement between a
band and Her Majesty. The money was not given to Mr. Desnomie: it
was paid to him in consideration of his services pursuant to an
agreement between him and the MIEA.
[32] The money that was used to pay his salary came out of
funds given to the MIEA pursuant to its agreement with the DIAND,
not under an agreement between the DIAND and a band. The MIEA is
a corporation constituted pursuant to The Corporations Act
of Manitoba. Given that it is a corporation without share
capital, it has a personality distinct from that of its members.
In the Contribution Arrangement, there are no indications that
the MIEA was acting as an agent on behalf of the bands whose
representatives were on the Board of Directors. The Contribution
Arrangement specifically creates an obligation on the MIEA to
account to the DIAND for the money contributed by the
government.
[33] It is true that it is stated in paragraph 14 of the
Agreed Statement of Facts that the MIEA acted as an
“agent [for Indian bands and tribal councils] for
the provision of services to Indian students”. However,
I do not believe that this is sufficient evidence that the MIEA
was acting as their agent when it entered into an agreement with
the DIAND. It is one thing to represent a particular band when it
assumes responsibility for assisting a particular native student
belonging to that band. It is quite another to say that a
corporation without share capital is only acting as an agent for
its members.
[34] In his testimony, Mr. Desnomie, who is the executive
director of the MIEA, did not say that his employer acted as an
agent when it signed the Contribution Arrangement. Mr. Desnomie
was the signing officer for the MIEA with regard to the
Contribution Arrangement that was filed as an exhibit in this
case.
[35] In Kinookimaw Beach Association v. R. in right of
Saskatchewan, [1979] 6 W.W.R. 84, the Saskatchewan Court
of Appeal concluded that the separate legal existence of a
corporation could not be disregarded so that its tax liability
would be determined by the character of its individual
shareholders. In Kinookimaaw, seven Indian bands had
incorporated a company for the operation of a resort on reserve
lands. This corporation claimed under section 87 of the Indian
Act an exemption from the education and hospital tax on
purchases that it had made. Chief Justice Culliton stated at page
89:
To grant to the association the exemption from taxation
provided for in s. 87 of the Indian Act would be to destroy the
legal obligations of the association as an independent corporate
entity and to determine its obligations by the character of its
shareholders.
Here, there are no reasons to lift the corporate veil.
[36] For all these reasons, Mr. Desnomie’s appeal is
dismissed, with costs.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 23rd day of June, 1998.
« Pierre Archambault »
J.C.C.I.