Jeddore v. The Queen, docket 96-2182-IT-G

Date: 19980612

Docket: 96-2182-IT-G

BETWEEN:

JOHN N. JEDDORE,

Appellant,

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,

Respondent.

Reasons for order

Bell, J.T.C.C.

[1] This case was set down for hearing in St. John's, Newfoundland on June 1, 1998.

[2] At the request of counsel for both parties, I met with them and the Registrar in chambers in advance of the commencement of the case. The issue is whether income received by the Appellant in his 1984 taxation year is exempt from tax within the meaning of paragraph 81(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act by reason of being the personal property of an Indian situated on a Reserve within the meaning of section 87 of the Indian Act. It appeared, from the discussion in chambers, that the main issue was whether the Appellant lived on a Reserve - i.e. whether, in law, the land occupied by the Appellant and other Micmac Indians was a Reserve within the meaning of the law. Respondent's counsel subsequently advised that the question of whether the Appellant was an Indian within the meaning of the Indian Act was also in issue.

[3] Respondent's counsel advised that he had discovered a box of journals of field notes prepared by one Alexander Murray, geologist, employed by the Surveyor General of Newfoundland and by one James P. Howley. The box was also said to have included the notes of Governor MacGregor forming the basis of a relevant report being the REPORT BY THE GOVERNOR ON A VISIT TO THE MICMAC INDIANS AT BAY D'ESPOIRE, entitled "Report by Governor upon the settlement of the Micmac Indians at Bay D'Espoire" dated July 8, 1908. These documents were found in the Crown Lands Registry Office in St. John's, Newfoundland on May 29, 1998.

[4] Counsel for both parties sought an adjournment of the case, which had been set down for three days, in order to retain such experts as they may determine, it being assumed that the materials discovered would be relevant to the determination of whether the land occupied by the Appellant was a "reserve" within the meaning of the relevant law.

[5] After discussion concerning issues and procedures, it was agreed that the case would commence and continue for the three days reserved for same and would be adjourned to January 25, 1999 for a period of three weeks terminating on February 13, 1999.

[6] Counsel for both parties agreed that after the presentation of all evidence, each of them would present orally to the Court a comprehensive summary of the points that would be raised in argument and that each would prepare a written submission and forward same for receipt by the Court and the other counsel on or before March 31, 1999.

[7] Further, the parties agreed that Court will reconvene on June 14, 1999 for supplementary oral submissions, it being anticipated that the time required may be four days. This will conclude the case.

[8] It was agreed that the Court and both parties would require a transcript of the evidence and that each of those three parties would pay one-third of the cost of such transcripts. This will not include the extra cost that any party may cause to be incurred by virtue of ordering a transcript of any part of the proceedings on such short notice that costs in excess of the regular charge are incurred. That party would bear such extra costs.

Signed at Ottawa, Canada this 12th day of June, 1998.

"R.D. Bell"

J.T.C.C.