Beaubier,
T.C.C.J.:
This
matter
was
heard
at
Regina,
Saskatchewan,
on
March
20,
1992.
In
the
original
appeal
dated
October
10,
1975,
the
material
appeared
to
describe
the
Federation
of
Saskatchewan
Indians
as
a
party
to
the
action.
In
his
reply
to
that
appeal
dated
October
14,
1986,
the
Minister
submitted
that
"inasmuch
as
the
Federation
of
Saskatchewan
Indians
is
a
party
to
this
Appeal,
it
has
no
standing.”
There
having
been
no
evidence
submitted
that
the
Federation
of
Saskatchewan
Indians
has
a
standing
in
respect
to
this
appeal,
the
appeal
of
the
Federation
of
Saskatchewan
Indians
is
dismissed.
Mr.
Whiteman
has
appealed
a
reassessment
to
levy
income
tax
on
his
salary
of
$13,772.37
paid
to
him
in
1974
when
he
was
the
administrator
of
a
student
residence
located
at
Marieval,
Saskatchewan.
It
was
operated
by
the
Department
of
Indian
and
Northern
Affairs,
Canada.
His
cheque
was
issued
by
the
Canada
Department
of
Supply
and
Services,
in
Winnipeg,
Manitoba.
Mr.
Whiteman
claims
that
he
should
not
pay
income
tax
on
his
employment
income
in
1974,
based
on
Treaty
#4,
a
copy
of
which
was
filed
as
Exhibit
A-2.
The
Court
was
referred
by
Mr.
Whiteman
to
page
7
thereof,
which
contains
the
following
paragraph:
Further,
Her
Majesty
agrees
to
maintain
a
school
in
the
reserve
allotted
to
each
band
as
soon
as
they
settle
on
said
reserve
and
are
prepared
for
a
teacher.
Mr.
Whiteman
was
the
only
witness.
He
gave
his
evidence
carefully
and
deliberately.
He
was
a
completely
credible
witness
and
the
Court
believes
his
testimony.
Mr.
Whiteman
was
at
all
times
material
to
this
action,
a
registered
Indian
pursuant
to
Treaty
#149
respecting
the
Standing
Buffalo
Reserve
situated
near
Fort
Qu’Appelle,
Saskatchewan.
He
is
a
member
of
the
Sioux
Nation.
Both
the
school
and
the
residence
are
situated
on
Crown
land
and
not
on
an
Indian
reserve.
In
respect
to
the
school,
his
testimony
reads
as
follows:
Q.
As
Administrator
of
the
residence
in
1974
what
did
you
understand
to
be
the
position
as
to
where
the
school
was
located?
A.
I
understood
it
at
that
time
to
be
on
Crown
land.
The
residence
was
built
in
1898
by
the
Canadian
government
to
provide
board
and
room
for
Indian
children
who
attended
the
nearby
school
for
Indian
children.
All
of
the
children
using
the
residence
were
Indians
from
five
reserves
situated
in
the
area.
Mr.
Whiteman
was
employed
as
administrator
of
the
Marieval
residence
continuously
from
1971
to
1979,
and
returned
as
administrator
for
one
year
after
1979.
In
one
year
he
paid
no
income
tax
on
his
salary.
In
another
year,
it
was
established
that
50
per
cent
of
his
time
was
spent
dealing
with
parents
and
authorities
on
reserves
and
only
50
per
cent
of
his
salary
was
subject
to
income
tax.
These
facts
are
not
regarded
as
material
for
the
purpose
of
determining
this
judgment
since
the
law
is
that
the
concept
of
estoppel
does
not
apply
to
the
Crown
in
respect
to
matters
such
as
those
before
this
Court.
In
1974,
Mr.
Whiteman
spent
50
per
cent
of
his
time
on
the
five
reserves
the
residence
served,
dealing
with
children,
parents
and
authorities
in
the
course
of
his
duties
as
administrator
of
the
Marieval
residence.
At
that
time
Mr.
Whiteman
resided
off
of
a
reserve
at
Broadview,
Saskatchewan.
His
salary
cheque
was
delivered
to
him
at
the
student
residence
at
Marieval,
Saskatchewan.
Mr.
Whiteman
admitted
that
each
of
the
five
reserves
served
by
the
Marieval
residence
had
a
school
at
the
time
in
question,
although
some
had
been
abandoned.
In
his
testimony
Mr.
Whiteman
stated
that
in
1974,
it
was
believed
in
the
Indian
community
that
the
school
was
on
the
reserve.
This
is
still
the
subject
of
some
dispute
but
his
testimony
is
clear
that
in
fact
the
school
and
residence
are
both
on
Crown
land.
For
this
reason
and
the
facts
already
cited,
the
Court
rejects
any
claim
made
by
the
appellant
for
exemption
from
income
tax
on
his
salary
based
on
the
premise
that
the
school
is
on
an
Indian
reserve.
The
main
argument
presented
by
the
appellant's
solicitor
for
exemption
from
liability
for
income
tax
is
that
the
school
on
Crown
land
is
one
described
in
Treaty
#4
in
which
Her
Majesty
agrees
"to
maintain
a
school
in
the
reserve
.
.
."
The
Marieval
residence
is
part
of
what
is
required
to
maintain
the
school
and
only
served
Indian
children.
Mr.
Whiteman
was
paid
his
salary
by
the
Government
of
Canada
to
administer
the
residence.
That
salary
is
personal
property
as
was
stated
by
the
Supreme
Court
of
Canada
in
Glenn
A.
Nowegi-
jick
v.
The
Queen,
[1983]
1
S.C.R.
29,
[1983]
C.T.C.
20,
83
D.T.C.
5041,
at
pages
24-26
(D.T.C.
5044-45),
and
these
wages
are
not
subject
to
income
tax
if
the
services
of
employment
are
rendered
on
an
Indian
reserve.
He
then
quotes
the
following
paragraphs
from
the
Indian
Act,
R.S.C.
1970,
c.
I-5:
87.
Notwithstanding
any
other
Act
of
Parliament
of
Canada
or
any
Act
of
the
legislature
of
a
province,
but
subject
to
section
83,
the
following
property
is
exempt
from
taxation,
namely.
.
...
(b)
the
personal
property
of
an
Indian
or
a
band
situated
on
a
reserve.
90.(1)For
the
purposes
of
sections
87
and
89,
personal
property
that
was.
(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.
This
argument
resolves
itself
to
whether
Mr.
Whiteman's
wages
were
given
to
him
by
the
Government
of
Canada
under
Treaty
#4
which
obliged
Her
Majesty
"to
maintain
a
school
in
the
reserve”.
It
is
noted
that
schools,
whether
operating
or
abandoned,
existed
in
each
of
the
five
reserves
served
by
the
school
with
which
the
Marieval
residence
was
associated.
Moreover,
that
school
was
not
on
or"
in”
an
Indian
reserve,
rather
it
was
on
Crown
land.
Given
these
two
facts,
the
Court
is
not
prepared
to
stretch
the
meaning
of
the
words
in
a
reserve”
to
find
that
the
salary
paid
to
Mr.
Whiteman
was
paid
as
part
of
the
obligation
of
the
Queen
to
maintain
a
school
in
a
reserve
pursuant
to
Treaty
#4.
The
school
was
not
in
a
reserve,
nor
was
it
maintained
in
compliance
with
the
specific
obligation
to
maintain
a
school
agreed
to
in
Treaty
#4.
Schools
existed
in
each
of
the
reserves
affected
by
the
school
and
residence
in
question.
The
obligation
on
the
Queen
to
maintain
these
schools
in
each
reserve
was
enforceable
by
the
Indian
bands.
There
is
no
evidence
before
the
Court
that
the
Marieval
residence
and
the
school
it
served
were
maintained
as
the
result
of
an
agreement
between
the
bands
and
the
Queen
to
substitute
them
for
the
obligation
on
the
Queen
contained
in
Treaty
#4.
The
result
is
that
the
wages
of
the
appellant
were
not
paid
to
him
on
a
reserve,
nor
were
they
given
to
him
under
a
treaty
between
a
band
and
Her
Majesty
so
as
to
be
deemed
to
be
situated
on
a
reserve.
The
appeal
is
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content