A-21 I-79
The Queen (Appellant) (Defendant)
v.
Gene A. Nowegijick (Respondent) (Plaintiff)
Court of Appeal, Heald, Urie and Le Dain JJ.—
Ottawa, September 26, 1979.
Income tax — Indians — Section 87 of Indian Act contem
plating specific personal property qua property and not taxa
tion in respect of taxable income as defined by Income Tax
Act, which is not itself personal property — Tax imposed on
respondent not taxation in respect of personal property within
meaning of s. 87 — Appeal allowed, judgment of the Trial
Division reversed, and the assessment for respondent's 1975
taxation year restored — Indian Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-6, s.
87.
APPEAL.
COUNSEL:
J. P. Fortin, Q.C. and W. Lefebvre for appel
lant (defendant).
M. Menczer for respondent (plaintiff).
SOLICITORS:
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
appellant (defendant).
Wyatt, Menczer & Savage, Ottawa, for
respondent (plaintiff).
The following are the reasons for judgment
rendered in English by
HEALD J.: We are all of the view that there are
no significant distinctions between this case and
the Snow case (Snow v. The Queen [1979] C.T.C.
227) where this Court held: "section 86 [of the
Indian Act'] contemplates taxation in respect of
specific personal property qua property and not
taxation in respect of taxable income as defined by
the Income Tax Act, which, while it may reflect
items that are personal property, is not itself per
sonal property but an amount to be determined as
a matter of calculation by application of the provi
sions of the Act."
We have accordingly concluded, for the reasons
given in the Snow case referred to supra, that the
tax imposed on this respondent under the Income
Now section 87 of R.S.C. 1970, c. I-6.
Tax Act, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63, is not taxation in
respect of personal property within the meanings
of section 87 of the Indian Act.
The appeal is therefore allowed, the judgment of
the Trial Division [[1979] 2 F.C. 228] is reversed
and the assessment for the respondent's 1975 taxa
tion year is restored. As agreed between the par
ties, the respondent is entitled to his costs, to be
taxed as between solicitor and client, both here
and in the Trial Division.
* * *
URIE J. concurred.
* * *
LE DAIN J. concurred.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.