Date: 20000707
Docket: T-2288-92
BETWEEN:
| CHARLES JOHN GORDON BENOIT, JOAN |
| ELIZABETH BENOIT, GORDON JAMES ALFRED |
| BENOIT, ATHABASCA TRIBAL CORPORATION, |
| and THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES TREATY 8 |
| TRIBAL COUNCIL |
Plaintiffs
| - and - |
| HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA |
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
CAMPBELL, J.:
[1] By motion, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation ("the Applicant") has applied for leave to intervene in the proceeding herein, or, alternatively, to be added as a Defendant. For the reasons which follow, I dismiss this application.
[2] In the present action, by the Amended Statement of Claim, the Plaintiffs allege that:
| a. A promise was made by the Treaty Commissioners in connection with Treaty 8 that the Treaty would not lead to the imposition of any tax (the "subject promise"); |
| b. The subject promise is a right to which members of First Nations who are entitled to the benefits of Treaty 8 are entitled; |
| c. The subject promise was not extinguished and is protected from extinguishment by the Constitution Act, 1982; |
| d. Any imposition of tax upon members of Treaty 8 is an infringement of a treaty right. |
[3] The action is fully and strongly contested by the Defendant which, by the Amended Statement of Defence, responds that:
| a. No such promise was made in connection with Treaty 8; |
| b. The Plaintiffs are not exempt from taxation; |
| c. Alternatively, if the Plaintiffs were ever exempt from taxation that exemption was extinguished; |
| d. Alternatively, if there were an exemption which was not extinguished, the limits on that exemption are justified by the legislative objective to provide public financing for the needs of the people of Canada. |
[4] In addition, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta has intervened in the present action by virtue of s. 57(4) of the Federal Court Act1 to adduce evidence and make submissions on the constitutional question served by the Plaintiffs as follows:
| The application of Federal taxation provisions to Indian beneficiaries of Treaty 8 is inconsistent with section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B to Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), and is therefore, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force and effect. |
[5] The trial issues are thus set.
[6] In support of the present motion, according to the Affidavit of Mr. Mitchell Gray, the Alberta Director of the Applicant, the Applicant's mission statement is as follows:
| (a) To act as a watchdog and to inform taxpayers of governments' impact on their economic well-being. |
| (b) To promote responsible fiscal and democratic reforms and to advocate taxpayers' common interests. |
| (c) To motivate and mobilize taxpayers to exercise their democratic responsibilities.2 |
[7] Further, according to Mr. Gray, the objectives of the Applicant include the following:
| (a) balanced budgeting and elimination of the national and provincial debts. |
| (b) enactment of legislative limits on power of elected officials to borrow, tax and spend public funds. |
| (c) promotion of responsible and efficient use of tax dollars. |
| (d) encouragement of Canadians to exercise not only their rights but also their responsibilities in taxation matters.3 |
[8] Therefore, on the evidence supplied by Mr. Gray in his Affidavit respecting the activities of the Applicant, I find that the Applicant can be fairly described as a non-aligned political lobby group dedicated to tax reform. As such, the Applicant applies to intervene, in particular, with respect to assuring equality for all taxpayers in Canada.
[9] By Rule 104(1)(b) of the Federal Court Rules, 1998, in order for the Applicant to be added as a Defendant, it must be shown that a cause of action exists between the Plaintiffs and the Applicant over which the Court has jurisdiction4. I agree with the Plaintiff"s argument that no cause of action exists between the Plaintiffs and the Applicant. I also agree with the Plaintiff"s argument that the parties to Treaty 8 are the Crown and the First Nations who signed or adhered to the Treaty, and, thus, the Treaty imposes ongoing obligations on the Crown in Right of Canada. Therefore, I agree that the Defendant is the appropriate party to sue in an action to enforce treaty rights.
[10] On this basis, I find that the Applicant is not a party which should have been sued by the Plaintiff in the first instance. In addition, I am satisfied that all matters in dispute may be effectually and completely determined without the Applicant"s involvement. Therefore, the Applicant"s application to be added as a Defendant is dismissed.
[11] In his affidavit, Mr. Gray expresses concern about the "possible impact on government taxation at every level within the territories covered by Treaty 8 and, by "copy-cat" application, the rest of Canada, and its possible adverse effects on the democratic rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."5 However, with respect to the Applicant"s application to intervene in the present action, Rule 109 of the Rules establishes an onus on the Applicant to describe how such participation "will assist the determination of a factual or legal issue relating to the proceeding".
[12] Most recently Rule 109 was interpreted in Yale Indian Band v. Aitchelitz Indian Band [1998] F.C.J. No. 1060 at paragraph 5 to require a proposed intervener to show how "....relevant, different or new viewpoints, insights or expertise which the other parties do not have and which would allow the Court to fully and effectually adjudicate the matter." With regard to this requirement, the Applicant makes the following assertion:
| The Defendant Her Majesty in Right of Canada is bound by many constitutional, statutory and other legal responsibilities and fiduciary obligations to Indians and must necessarily be constrained from making submissions or arguments perceived to be against the interests of the Plaintiffs. The Applicant, on the contrary, represents the interests of Canadians in all spectra of the Canadian community including Indians who are not among the Plaintiffs or represented by them some of which go beyond native law questions.6 |
[13] I find there is no evidence to support the Applicant"s assertion that the Defendant is somehow constrained in its defense of the present action. Therefore, I find that the Applicant"s participation will not assist the determination of a factual or legal issue related to the action.
| [14] Accordingly, the Applicant"s application to intervene is dismissed. |
"Douglas R. Campbell"
Judge
EDMONTON, Alberta
July 7th, 2000.
APPENDIX
Section 57 of the Federal Court Act reads as follows:
| Constitutional Questions 57.(1) Where the constitutional validity, applicability or operability of an Act of Parliament or of the legislature of any province, or of regulations thereunder, is in question before the Court or a federal board, commission or other tribunal, other than a service tribunal within the meaning of the National Defence Act, the Act or regulation shall not be adjudged to be invalid, inapplicable or inoperable unless notice has been served on the Attorney General of Canada and the attorney general of each province in accordance with subsection (2). |
Questions constitutionnelles 57. (1) Les lois fédérales ou provinciales ou leurs textes d'application, dont la validité, l'applicabilité ou l'effet, sur le plan constitutionnel, est en cause devant la Cour ou un office fédéral, sauf s'il s'agit d'un tribunal militaire au sens de la Loi sur la défense nationale, ne peuvent être déclarés invalides, inapplicables ou sans effet, à moins que le procureur général du Canada et ceux des provinces n'aient été avisés conformément au paragraphe (2). |
| Time of notice (2) Except where otherwise ordered by the Court or the federal board, commission or other tribunal, the notice referred to in subsection (1) shall be served at least ten days before the day on which the constitutional question described in that subsection is to be argued. |
Formule et délai de l'avis (2) L'avis est, sauf ordonnance contraire de la Cour ou de l'office fédéral en cause, signifié au moins dix jours avant la date à laquelle la question constitutionnelle qui en fait l'objet doit être débattue. |
| Notice of appeal or application for judicial review (3) The Attorney General of Canada and the attorney general of each province are entitled to notice of any appeal or application for judicial review made in respect of the constitutional question described in subsection (1). |
Appel et contrôle judiciaire (3) Les avis d'appel et de demande de contrôle judiciaire portant sur une question constitutionnelle sont à signifier au procureur général du Canada et à ceux des provinces. |
| Right to Be Heard (4) The Attorney General of Canada and the attorney general of each province are entitled to adduce evidence and make submissions to the Court or federal board, commission or other tribunal in respect of the constitutionality question described in subsection (1). |
Droit des procureurs généraux d'être entendus (4) Le procureur général à qui un avis visé aux paragraphes (1) ou (3) est signifié peut présenter une preuve et des observations à la Cour, et à l'office fédéral en cause, à l'égard de la question constitutionnelle en litige. |
| Right of Appeal (5) Where the Attorney General of Canada or the attorney general of a province makes submissions under subsection (4), that attorney general shall be deemed to be a party to the proceedings for the purposes of any appeal in respect of the constitutional question described in subsection (1). |
Droit d'appel (5) Le procureur général qui présente des observations est réputé partie à l'instance aux fins d'un appel portant sur la question constitutionnelle. |
| Rule 104 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998, reads as follows: |
|
| 104.(1) At any time, the Court may
(a) order that a person who is not a proper or necessary party shall cease to be a party; or (b) order that a person who ought to have been joined as a party or whose presence before the Court is necessary to ensure that all matters in dispute in the proceeding may be effectually and completely determined be added as a party, but no person shall be added as a plaintiff or applicant without his or her consent, signified in writing or in such other manner as the Court may order. Directions (2) An order made under subsection (1) shall contain directions as to amendment of the originating document and any other pleadings. |
104.(1) La Cour peut, à tout moment, ordonner : a) qu'une personne constituée erronément comme partie ou une partie dont la présence n'est pas nécessaire au règlement des questions en litige soit mise hors de cause; b) que soit constituée comme partie à l'instance toute personne qui aurait dû l'être ou dont la présence devant la Cour est nécessaire pour assurer une instruction complète et le règlement des questions en litige dans l'instance; toutefois, nul ne peut être constitué codemandeur sans son consentement, lequel est notifié par écrit ou de telle autre manière que la Cour ordonne. Directives de la Cour (2) L'ordonnance rendue en vertu du paragraphe (1) contient des directives quant aux modifications à apporter à l'acte introductif d'instance et aux autres actes de procédure. |
Rule 109 of the Federal Court Rules,1998, reads as follows:
| Authorization to Intervene 109. (1) The Court may, on motion, grant leave to any person to intervene in a proceeding. Contents of notice of motion (2) Notice of a motion under subsection (1) shall (a) set out the full name and address of the proposed intervener and of any solicitor acting for the proposed intervener; and (b) describe how the proposed intervener wishes to participate in the proceeding and how that participation will assist the determination of a factual or legal issue related to the proceeding. Directions (3) In granting a motion under subsection (1), the Court shall give directions regarding (a) the service of documents; and (b) the role of the intervener, including costs, rights of appeal and any other matters relating to the procedure to be followed by the intervener.
|
Autorisation d'intervenir 109. (1) La Cour peut, sur requête, autoriser toute personne à intervenir dans une instance. Avis de requête (2) L'avis d'une requête présentée pour obtenir l'autorisation d'intervenir : a) précise les nom et adresse de la personne qui désire intervenir et ceux de son avocat, le cas échéant; b) explique de quelle manière la personne désire participer à l'instance et en quoi sa participation aidera à la prise d'une décision sur toute question de fait et de droit se rapportant à l'instance. Directives de la Cour (3) La Cour assortit l'autorisation d'intervenir de directives concernant : a) la signification de documents; b) le rôle de l'intervenant, notamment en ce qui concerne les dépens, les droits d'appel et toute autre question relative à la procédure à suivre.
|
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-2288-92
STYLE OF CAUSE: Charles John Gordon Benoit et al. V.
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada
PLACE OF HEARING: Edmonton, Alberta
DATE OF HEARING: July 6, 2000
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER OF CAMPBELL, J.
DATED: July 7, 2000
APPEARANCES:
Karin Buss
| Elizabeth Johnson FOR PLAINTIFF |
Bonnie Moon FOR DEFENDANT
Aldo Argento
| Morey Sair FOR THE ATTORNEY |
GENERAL OF ALBERTA
| Norman D. Mullins, Q.C. FOR THE CANADIAN |
TAXPAYERS FEDERATION
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| Ackroyd, Piasta Roth & Day FOR PLAINTIFF |
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR DEFENDANT
| Parlee McLaws FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ALBERTA |
| Norman D. Mullins, Q.C. FOR THE CANADIAN |
TAXPAYERS FEDERATION
__________________1 This provision, together with Rules 104 and 109 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998 , is quoted in the Appendix to these reasons.
2 Affidavit of Mitchell Gray, paragraph 4.
4 See British Columbia Native Womens" Society v. Canada [1998] F.C.J. No. 108 at paragraph 6.