Bell
T.C.J.:
This
case
was
set
down
for
hearing
in
St.
John’s,
Newfoundland
on
June
1,
1998.
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
)(tz)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Order
accordingly.