Date: 20031118
Docket: A-25-03
A-22-03
A-23-03
A-24-03
Citation: 2003 FCA 433
CORAM: ROTHSTEIN J.A.
A-25-03
BETWEEN:
PETER RONALD FRENCH
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
A-22-03
BETWEEN:
BARRY ACE
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
A-23-03
BETWEEN:
MARGARET LANIGAN
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
A-24-03
BETWEEN:
CAROL STACEY-DIABO
Appellants
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, November 18, 2003.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, November 18, 2003.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: ROTHSTEIN J.A.
Date: 20031118
Docket: A-25-03
A-22-03
A-23-03
A-24-03
Citation: 2003 FCA 433
CORAM: ROTHSTEIN J.A.
A-25-03
BETWEEN:
PETER RONALD FRENCH
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
A-22-03
BETWEEN:
BARRY ACE
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
A-23-03
BETWEEN:
MARGARET LANIGAN
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
A-24-03
BETWEEN:
CAROL STACEY-DIABO
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario,
on November 18, 2003)
[1] These are four appeals of judgments of the Tax Court of Canada dated December 12, 2002, dealing with a common set of issues. The reasons for judgment of the Tax Court are reported as Stacey-Diabo v. Canada (sub. nom. Barry Ace et al. v. The Queen), [2002] T.C.J. No. 667 (QL), 2003 D.T.C. 200, [2003] 2 C.T.C. 2275 (T.C.C.). In each case the Tax Court Judge dismissed appeals from reassessments made under the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.) on the basis that the employment income of the appellants was not exempt from income tax pursuant to section 87 of the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-5.
[2] Several issues were raised in the appeal. A number of them have now been abandoned because of the decision of this Court in Elizabeth Sinclair v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2003 FCA 348, rendered on September 24, 2003.
[3] The only remaining issue is whether the Tax Court Judge correctly applied the "connecting factors" principles from Williams v. Canada, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 877 in determining whether the employment income of the appellants was located on a reserve. Each of the appellants is an Indian, and each of them is an employee of the Government of Canada, working in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in jobs related to Aboriginal issues. Their fixed place of employment is in the National Capital Region. The Tax Court judge found they resided in the National Capital Region. After an extensive and careful review of the facts, the Tax Court Judge found that their employment income did not have sufficient connection to a reserve to justify a conclusion that their income was located on a reserve.
[4] Her reasons for judgment disclose no error of law or other error that warrants the intervention of this Court.
[5] For that reason, these appeals will be dismissed with one set of costs. These reasons apply to Court files A-25-03, A-22-03, A-23-03, A-24-03.
"Marshall Rothstein"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKETS: A-25-03
A-22-03
A-23-03
A-24-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: Peter Ronald French v. Her Majesty the Queen
Barry Ace v. Her Majesty the Queen
Margaret Lanigan v. Her Majesty the Queen
Carol Stacey-Diabo v. Her Majesty the Queen
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: November 18, 2003
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT: ROTHSTEIN, SHARLOW and MALONE JJ.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE
BENCH BY: ROTHSTEIN J.A.
APPEARANCES:
|
Mr. Emilio Binavince Ms. Helen Lanctôt |
FOR THE APPELLANTS |
|
Mr. Richard Gobeil Ms. Jade Boucher |
FOR THE RESPONDENT |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
BINAVINCE SMITH Ottawa, Ontario |
FOR THE APPELLANTS |
|
Mr. Morris A. RosenbergDeputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Ontario |
FOR THE RESPONDENT |