Matthew v. The Queen, 97 DTC 1454 (TCC)

Rip TCJ. rejected a submission that the employment income of the taxpayer (who was a status Indian employed by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) was exempt because it was "personal property that was ... monies appropriated by Parliament for use and benefit of Indians or Bands". The proper interpretation of s. 90(1)(a) was that it referred to personal property that was purchased by the Crown with two sources of funds: Indian monies, and monies appropriated by Parliament.

Before going on to refer to the absence of a comma in the relevant portion of s. 90(1)(a) of the Indian Act, Rip TCJ. stated (at p. 1457) that "the presence or absence of punctuation, while not determinative in itself, can be an important interpretative aid ...".