Date: 20000512
Docket: T-561-99
BETWEEN:
CAROL NEWS, on her own behalf and on behalf of all
members of the WAHTA MOHAWK WOMEN"S GROUP
Applicants
- and -
WAHTA MOHAWKS
Respondents
REASONS FOR ORDER
McKEOWN J.
[1] The Applicants seek a declaration that sixty individuals are not entitled to citizenship as Wahta Mohawks and as such were not entitled to vote in the Band Council elections held on March 27, 1999, contrary to a decision by the Registrar of the Wahta Mohawks on or about February 8, 1999 and March 11, 1999. In the alternative the Applicants seek an order of mandamus commanding that the Band Council hear and decide the entitlement to membership of sixty individuals in strict accordance with the Wahta Mohawks Citizenship Regulation (the "Regulation"). In addition the Applicants seek a declaration that the Band Council elections held on March 27, 1999, are invalid or in the further alternative orders of quo warranto and certiorari quashing the March 27, 1999 election results, thereby requiring a new Band Council election be held immediately following the resolution of the sixty individuals" membership status.
Issues:
[2] The issues in this case are:
| 1) Did the Band Council, as a Federal Tribunal, refuse to exercise its proper jurisdiction and commit errors of law within its jurisdiction by failing to uphold the provisions of the Citizenship Code1, Regulation, and Indian Act2? |
| 2) Did the Band Council, in deciding the Applicants" appeals, fail to observe the principles of natural justice, and additionally, did its ultimate decision lack procedural fairness? |
| 3) Was the Band Council decision to adopt the findings of the Registrar and to dismiss the appeals of the Applicants based on erroneous findings of fact that were made without regard to the material before it? |
| 4) Having regard to the provisions of the Citizenship Code, which provides that the decision of the Band Council with respect to Citizenship issues is final, should this Court defer to the decision of the Band Council, and if it intervenes, what standard of review is appropriate? |
Facts:
[3] The matter began as a notice of application on March 25, 1999 by Carol News on her own behalf and on behalf of Wahta Mohawk Women"s Group. On March 22, 1999, the Applicants had filed three Notices of Appeal from decisions of the Registrar to the Band Council. Then, on March 26, 1999, the Applicants moved for an order staying the Band Council elections of the Wahta Mohawks scheduled for March 27, 1999. They also sought a determination that sixty individuals were not entitled to citizenship as Wahta Mohawks and as such were not entitled to vote in the Band Council elections, contrary to a decision of the Registrar of the Wahta Mohawks on or about February 8, 1999 and March 11, 1999. The motion was heard on March 26, 1999 by Mr. Justice Teitelbaum by telephone conference hearing. The stay was refused on the basis that the Applicants did not establish irreparable harm, and the election proceeded.
[4] Stephen Stock as Chief, who was the original respondent, instructed counsel to oppose the application for a stay on the grounds that the people should decide the matter. Chief Stock lost the election the following day. Blaine Commandant was elected as Chief replacing the former Chief on March 27, 1999. One of the first orders of business for the new Chief and Council was to deal with the appeals of the sixty persons. All the relevant parties were notified and the time limits of the Band"s procedures were followed and a decision was reached June 24, 1999 on all sixty individuals.
[5] On October 28, 1999, the original Respondent was deleted and replaced by the Wahta Mohawks as the party Respondents. The Applicant refused to disclose the identity of the members of the Wahta Mohawk Women"s Group, although five of them were identified by the Applicants" counsel at the hearing. One of the five women introduced to the Court was a former Registrar who had admitted a large number of people as long ago as 1988. The Wahta Mohawk Women"s Group is not recognized by the Wahta Mohawks and has no official status. The Wahta Mohawks are a Band within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-5 to which section 74 of the Indian Act does not apply, as the Band Council is chosen according to the custom of the Band.
[6] On December 23, 1999, the Applicants" Record was served and filed and contained a brand new application. Although there was no provision in the Rules for filing a new application without leave, in order to permit this matter to be heard promptly, the Respondents took no issue with respect to the new application.
[7] The principal affidavit filed by the Applicants was an affidavit by Kimberly Thomas, a lawyer for the Applicants, which affidavit is based on information supplied by the Applicant Carol News. Carol News filed an affidavit confirming that all the facts in paragraph 2 of Kimberly Thomas" affidavit are accurate and true. The Respondents filed affidavits by the former Chief Stephen Stock and the present Chief Blaine Commandant and six affidavits by some of the 60 individuals whose citizenship is in dispute. These latter six affidavits also included facts related to the citizenship status of the members of the respective affiants" families. The Applicants did not cross-examine any of the Respondents" affiants, and the Respondents did not cross-examine the Applicants" affiants.
[8] In 1985 the federal government passed Bill C-31, An Act to Amend the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 32 (1st Supp.) which provided a mechanism for Indian bands to take over control of their citizenship pursuant to section 10 of the Indian Act as amended. The Wahta Mohawks enacted their own election regulations titled The Mohawks of Gibson Election Regulations. In addition the Wahta Mohawks enacted their own Citizenship Code on June 20,1987, namely the Mohawks of Gibson Citizenship Code ("Citizenship Code") pursuant to section 10(1) of the Indian Act . On or about September 1, 1987, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada gave notice to the Wahta Mohawks that they had control over their own membership pursuant to the Citizenship Code, effective June 26, 1987.
[9] The Mohawks of Gibson Citizenship Code was adopted only after two years of intensive discussion. Among those who voted against the Citizenship Code was ex-chief Stock, but he still adopted the Citizenship Code and followed the provisions thereof. I have set out the relevant provisions of the Citizenship Code and certain subsections of the Indian Act in the Appendix to this Judgment.
[10] Upon adoption of the Citizenship Code the names of persons on or who were entitled to be on the band list were placed on the Wahta Mohawks" Citizenship Roll. This was done automatically without their having to make an application for citizenship. The name of the Applicant, Carol News, was included among the names automatically placed on the Wahta Mohawks" Citizenship Code. She did not make an application for citizenship.
[11] Beginning in 1988 numerous persons not on the band list applied for and were granted citizenship. This includes forty-three of the sixty persons whose entitlement to citizenship is impugned by the Applicants. Most of the forty-three individuals have been citizens of the Wahta Mohawks for many years and have been on the voters list for band council elections, including the election in which the Applicant was elected in 1996.
[12] The remaining seventeen persons whose citizenship is in question owe their place in the citizenship roll to the fact that they are persons "entitled to be on the band list", although they were not actually on the band list immediately before the Wahta Mohawks took control of their membership. They are distinguishable from the Applicant Carol News only in respect of the fact that her name was actually on the band list on June 26, 1987, whereas they were only "entitled" to be on the band list, but they were not until they were added by the Registrar to the Wahta Citizenship Roll on 6 January 1999 and notice of the additions were posted the same day.
[13] In July 1998 the Chief and Council appointed the current registrar, Lyla Commandant. She was directed to review and report to Council on the membership of the Wahta Mohawks. Council did not intend to amend or vary the duties of the registrar. Those duties were defined in section 4 of the Wahta Mohawk Citizenship Code.
[14] On February 8, 1999, the Registrar filed a copy of the Membership Report. In the report she states:
| "There were 23 persons who should have been added to the membership list automatically as they are entitled under section 6(1)(a) of the Indian Act . These persons I have added to the list (the Indian Act overrules our Code)" |
[15] The Applicants allege that on February 10, 1999 the Band Council decided that a decision regarding the twenty-three membership additions would be deferred pending the decision in the outstanding appeal regarding the citizenship entitlement of Joyce White, as the outcome of this appeal would influence the entitlement to citizenship of the foregoing twenty-three individuals. Former Chief Stock has reviewed the minutes of the Band Council meeting which was held on February 9, 1999 and states that no such decision is referred to in the minutes and furthermore no such decision was made to his knowledge. He goes further and states:
| "No such decision could be made by the Council. The names had already been added to the list on 6 January 1999 and notice of the addition of those names had been posted in the Wahta Mohawks Administration Building when they were added. The only way a Registrar"s decision can come before Council is by way of appeal to Council under section 10 of the Code. As at the date of the February 1999 meeting of Council, no appeal with respect to the 23 additions had been taken to Council." |
[16] The Applicant Carol News alleged that she was denied a copy of the membership list and the Indian and Northern Affairs Canada ("INAC") list, but former Chief Stock said that the membership and INAC lists could be reviewed by any member but lists could not be copied. He pointed out that the INAC list states on its face that the information in it is protected by the privacy provisions of Federal legislation and is not to be copied for any purpose. I find the affidavit of former Chief Stock very compelling since he would benefit if the Applicants were successful in having the 1999 election declared null and void.
[17] The Band Council heard the three appeals on June 1, 1999. Chief Blaine Commandant stated in his affidavit that "the appellant and the person whose citizenship was at issue was afforded the opportunity to make submissions to us. After all submissions were heard, we, the Chief and Council, took time to consider our decision." They obtained a legal opinion on the issues before them and, in accordance with the "provisions of the Regulation , furnished a copy of that opinion to the appellant." The Chief and Council in a unanimous decision dismissed all the appeals on June 24, 1999 and they noted that "the appeals were all brought beyond the 60 day period for appealing citizenship decisions and we found no reason in the circumstances of any of the cases brought before us in these three appeals why we should waive or ignore the 60-day provision of the Citizenship Code and Regulation."
[18] No leave was granted to amend the notice of application and the Applicants have not produced the record of the appeal proceedings before the Band Council in this Court. However, the Respondents, "in the interests of finality and because of the urgency in having this matter decided", wanted to deal with the issues stated in the Applicants" Memorandum of Fact and Law. I am in agreement with the Respondents that the matter is urgent. Accordingly, I grant leave to amend the notice of application as of the date the application record was filed.
[19] I will now review the degree of deference that I should show to a decision of a Band Council. Both parties agree that the decision of the Band Council is subject to judicial review before this Court, and this view is supported in Judicial Review of Administrative Action in Canada.3 The following passage confirms the jurisdiction of the Federal Court with respect to the decisions of Band Councils who are acting pursuant to statutory authority:
| "While Indian Bands have been held not to be "federal boards," the courts have consistently said that when exercising or purporting to exercise powers conferred by or under federal legislation, an Indian Band council is a federal board. As well, when exercising jurisdiction and powers conferred by the Indian Act , an Indian Band chief has been held to be a federal board, as have appeal tribunals and individual members of a Band Council."4 |
Analysis:
[20] In my view a considerable degree of deference should be shown to a decision of a Band Council. Parliament has clearly intended that Indian Bands regain control over their membership. Secondly, the Citizenship Code in question shows an intention to restrict review of a decision of Band Council when it provides that the appeal of the citizenship decision to the Band Council is final in section 10(4). The issue before me is one of mixed fact and law dealing with a decision applying the facts in each individual"s case to the Band"s Citizenship Code and Regulation concerning citizenship. The Band Council has considerable experience in questions of citizenship, Band custom and lineage, so as to be accorded considerable deference in matters relating to application of those considerations to a decision on citizenship. I agree with Jerome A.C.J. in Ermineskin v. Ermineskin Indian Band Council (1995), 96 F.T.R. 181 (T.D.) where he stated:
"While I agree that the court should be reluctant to place the decision-making process of the Band Council under a microscope because it involves Band customs and rituals, that is not a carte blanche for the Band Council decisions to be made in complete absence of procedural fairness nor from adhering to its own established rules and procedures."5
[21] Accordingly, in my view, the Band Council"s decision with respect to citizenship and the application of its own Citizenship Code and Regulation should be overturned only if the decision is patently unreasonable. Furthermore, in my view of this case, even if I applied a reasonableness simpliciter test, I would not change my decision.
[22] I will now review the first three issues as set out on page 2 herein. The Applicant claims that the Chief and Council appointed the current Registrar, Lyla Commandant, on or about July 1998 and directed her to complete a membership review from 1985 to the present. The Respondents agree that the Registrar was to complete a membership review beginning in 1987, which was the date when the Band took control of its membership list. The results of the review were provided in two membership reports, one dated February 8, 1999 and the second dated March 9, 1999. These two reports summarize various decisions made by the Registrar in conducting the membership review including the decision to add twenty-three individuals to the list which had been done on or before January 6, 1999, and to leave forty-three individuals on the list. However, these membership reports do not constitute a decision of the Registrar. The Applicants also alleged that the Registrar acted unilaterally in adding names to the list. However, the Registrar is supposed to act independently, according to former Chief Stock. The word "independently", not the word "unilaterally", correctly describes the action of the Registrar in this regard. The Registrar, not the Band Council is given the right to add members to the list. The relevant decisions of the Registrar for our purposes would be the original decisions to add various individuals to the membership list. This decision must be posted publicly and I am satisfied by the Respondents" affidavits that this was done in the cases before me, or that the Applicants otherwise knew of the decisions with respect to those who were on the voters" lists for the 1996 election (or earlier, in many cases). The appeal period runs sixty days from the initial decision.
[23] The Band Council determined the appeals relating to all sixty individuals on two grounds: 1) that the appeal was not brought within the sixty day limit specified in the Citizenship Code and 2) there were no circumstances that warranted "waiving or ignoring" the appeal period. The evidence before the Band Council sitting on appeal and before me supports the conclusion that the appeals are prescribed by the Regulation . I should note that the membership report does not constitute a decision for purposes of the circumstances before me. However, I accept that if the membership report specifically effected the deletion of an individual from the citizenship list, any person would have the right to appeal such a decision to the Band Council according to the Regulation. But these are not the circumstances before me. In my view, the Citizenship Report merely summarized earlier decisions that had been made by the current or former Registrars.
[24] I also note that the Applicants state that the Band Council did not provide any reasons for dismissing the appeals. However, the Council clearly gave reasons when it stated that the appeals were not brought within the sixty day limit and that there were no circumstances that warranted waiving the appeal period.
[25] I will now review the categories of individuals who were added to the list and the forty-three who were left on the list. There are seventeen people enrolled as citizens because of acquired rights. The Minister"s letter to the Chief which gave notice that the Wahta Mohawks had acquired control of their own membership pointed out that this was subject to certain provisions of the Indian Act , including ss. 10(4) which preserves acquired rights. By reason of ss. 10(4), when the Wahta Mohawks enacted their own Citizenship Code, effective June 26, 1987, any person who had the right on that date to have his or her name entered in the Band List for the Band was entitled as of right to have his or her name entered at any time thereafter notwithstanding any prohibition that might exist under the new membership rules established by the Band. Furthermore, the Citizenship Code complies with this requirement of the Indian Act when it states in ss. 5(1) that a person is entitled to enrolment if that person "was registered or entitled to be registered as a member of the Mohawks of Gibson Nation on the date this Citizenship Code comes into force." Thus, the fact that these seventeen people might not be entitled to citizenship under the new rules of the Band is irrelevant since the Indian Act and the Council"s own Citizenship Code state that persons cannot be denied citizenship by reason only of new membership rules. Furthermore, all seventeen individuals had been on the Band list on or before January 6, 1999. Contrary to the Applicants" submissions there was no necessity for these people to make a formal application since they are automatically entitled under the Indian Act . Furthermore, with respect to the group of three individuals under appeal, the Band had sought legal opinions with respect to one of the individuals" eligibility. They received two legal opinions which came to opposite conclusions, and the Band Council determined that the individual was eligible on June 24, 1999 by its decision to uphold the decision of the Registrar.
[26] The next group comprises forty-three individuals. The Applicants appeal on the basis that these individuals did not meet the eligibility requirements set out in s. 5(4) of the new Citizenship Code which requires that one parent be a citizen. These individuals were children of Indians who had been "voluntarily enfranchised" and thus lost their status pursuant to the provisions of the Indian Act . In any event the Band Council"s decision rests on the basis that the appeals were brought outside the sixty day period and are thus prescribed. The majority of these forty-three persons had been citizens for more than ten years and had been on voters" lists for Band Council elections including the election in 1996 when the Applicant Carol News was elected to Council. The refusal of Chief and Council to extend the sixty day limit for appealing citizenship decisions is reasonable and to have allowed such appeals would have the affect of calling in question previous elections and the actions of the elected Council. Justice Wetston canvassed these principles in December 19966 when he refused to extend the time for reviewing the Minister"s decision that the Wahta Mohawks had acquired control of their membership (the requested review was based on irregularities in the referendum process). The Applicant, before she was a member of Council, instructed Council to oppose the application for an extension of time and knew or ought to have known that the law cannot be explained away, and seeking to set aside such decisions is fatal. The Band Council did not "allow" the Registrar to add the names in question to the membership list as a result of the report of February 8, 1999. The names of the forty-three persons had already been on the membership list, the majority for more than ten years. I note further that the Regulation under the Registrar"s duty reads as follows:
"Regulation, section 5.(1) The Registrar shall conduct an ongoing review of the Citizenship Roll and, if he or she concludes that a person whose name is on the Citizenship Roll is not entitled to be a Citizen, shall provide a Notice of Deletion to that person, using Form 3, appended to this Regulation;"
[27] Even the Citizenship Code recognizes that a deletion of a person from the list has serious consequences to that person and that they should have the right to notice of a decision and thus the ability to appeal it to Band Council.
[28] Although the sixty day time limit is sufficient to uphold the finding of the Band Council, it might be helpful if I addressed the Applicants" argument with respect to the fact that the Band Council disregarded ss. 5(4) of the Citizenship Code which requires that individuals who came within that section must have at least one parent who is a citizen. I agree with the Respondents that there appears to be a lacunae in the Citizenship Code. Evidently Council years ago decided that persons who could prove that they had fifty percent or more Mohawk blood quantum were entitled to enrolment. Section 5 of the Citizenship Code deals generally with the class of persons who are entitled to enrolment and Section 7 of the Citizenship Code specifies the classes of persons who are not entitled to enrolment. Subsection 5(4) states:
"A person is entitled to enrolment if
4) that person has one parent who is a citizen and the applicant can prove at least 50% Mohawk blood quantum."
[29] Subsection 7(3) of the Citizenship Code excludes from membership the class of persons who are voluntarily enfranchised and subsection 7(4) excludes the descendants of such persons "who have less than 50% Mohawk blood quantum", but there is no exclusion of descendants of such persons who have 50% or more Mohawk blood quantum. There is a possible conflict between 7(4) and section 5 of the Citizenship Code . However, I note that section 5 of the Citizenship Code does not purport to be an exhaustive list of the classes of persons entitled to be enrolled. All 43 of these persons have at least 50% Mohawk blood quantum.
[30] Subsection 7(3) of the Citizenship Code is also not free from ambiguity. The word "voluntarily" is not defined. The available evidence from the surviving enfranchised forty-three persons indicates their enfranchisement was the result of economic duress and in some instances the result of deception by persons in authority. There is some question whether this Court has modern notions of voluntary conduct. The Applicant has stated that the forty-three persons who were in this category did not have a parent who was a citizen but have adduced no evidence in support of this submission. However the Respondents" evidence clearly shows that all forty-three persons whose citizenship is in issue have at least 50% Mohawk blood quantum. In my view it was reasonable for the Band Council to interpret the Citizenship Code in the aforesaid manner. There were no errors of law by the Band Council since it upheld the provisions of the Citizenship Code, Regulation and Indian Act. There were also no erroneous findings of fact.
[31] The Applicant submits that the Band Council failed to observe the principles of natural justice by rejecting relevant evidence with regard to the Citizenship Code and Regulation provisions when determining the appeals. They submitted that the Band Council rejected the two (there was only one legal opinion in the evidence which supports the Applicants) separate independent legal opinions concerning entitlement to membership of one particular individual who is in the group of seventeen. However the Band Council relied on a different legal opinion and there is no reason why the Band Council cannot determine which legal opinion it choses to follow. I also note that the Applicants have not brought before me the record of the proceedings before the Band Council and have not adduced any evidence regarding those proceedings.
[32] The Applicants also alleged that the Band Council was not impartial and was biased. The Applicants allege that the Band Council had a vested interest in the outcome of the appeals as they were the ultimate beneficiaries of the increased membership and voting lists. This ignores the fact that the former Chief Stock took the position prior to the election that the Band Council should oppose the Applicants" request for a stay of the election and, as stated earlier, that former Chief Stock lost the election. Furthermore, many of the individuals had been on the earlier voting list, particularly in 1996 when the Applicant Carol News was elected as a Councillor. Even if there is bias, it should also be remembered that it was the Band Council that was the body required by both the Citizenship Code and Regulation to hear appeals on citizenship cases. There is no other body to hear the appeal and there is likely to be an issue of impartiality in most appeals. The law is quite clear that the Tribunal may be authorized and obliged to hear and determine a matter when no other tribunal is available. As stated earlier, the Band Council did provide reasons. There is no breach of the principles of natural justice nor the requirements of procedural fairness in the matter before me.
[33] In summary I find the actions of the Band Council in following the Citizenship Code, Regulation and Indian Act were reasonable. I do not have to review the remedy issue raised by the Applicants since the Applicants have not succeeded.
[34] For the foregoing reasons the application is dismissed. If the parties cannot agree on costs they may speak to me.
"W.P. McKeown"
______________________________
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
May 12, 2000
APPENDIX
Page 1 of 2
Mohawks of Gibson Citizenship Code
| Purpose |
| 3. The purpose of this Code is to |
| (1) preserve the cultural and political integrity of the Mohawks of Gibson Nation; |
| (2) preserve the sovereignty of the Mohawks of Gibson Nation through the exercise of inherent rights; and |
| (3) provide the basis for the exercise of the rights and obligations of the citizens of the Mohawks of Gibson Nation and others under its jurisdiction. |
| Enrolment |
| 4. (1) A Registrar shall be appointed by the Council of the Mohawks of Gibson Nation who shall be responsible for maintaining the Mohawks of Gibson Nation Citizenship Roll. |
| (2) The duties of the Registrar include |
| (a) considering applications for enrolment, |
| (b) adding and deleting names from the Citizenship Roll, noting the date and particulars of each such addition or deletion; and |
| (c) providing public information about the Citizenship Code. |
| (3) The Registrar shall make a decision on an application for enrolment or deletion within thirty days of receipt. |
Entitlement
5. A person is entitled to enrolment if:
| (1) That person was registered or entitled to be registered as a member of the Mohawks of Gibson Nation on the date this Citizenship Code comes into force; |
| ... |
| (3) That person is a child having at least 50% Indian blood quantum who has been legally adopted, or adopted in accordance with Indian custom, and the adoptive parents are citizens; |
| (4) That person has one parent who is a citizen and the applicant can prove at least 50% Mohawk blood quantum; |
| ... |
Persons Not Entitled to Citizenship
| 7. The following persons are not entitled to enrolment: |
| ... |
| (3) Any person who voluntarily enfranchised under the provisions of the Indian Act for any reason; or |
| (4) Descendants of persons described in subsection (3) who have less than 50% Mohawk blood quantum. |
| ... |
APPENDIX
Page 2 of 2
Appeals
| 10. (1) Appeals from decisions of the Registrar may be taken to Council within 60 days after the Registrar"s decision or action as the case may be. |
| (2) In the event of an appeal, the Registrar shall provide the applicant and Council with written reasons for the decision or action taken. |
| ... |
| (4) The decision of Council on a citizenship appeal is final." |
Section 10 of the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-5, as amended
| 10. (1) Band control of membership " A band may assume control of its own membership if it establishes membership rules for itself in writing in accordance with this section and if, after the band has given appropriate notice of its intention to assume control of its own membership, a majority of the electors of the band gives its consent to the band"s control of its own membership. |
| (2) Membership rules " A band may, pursuant to the consent of a majority of the electors of the band, |
| (a) after it has given appropriate notice of its intention to do so establish membership rules for itself; and |
| (b) provide for a mechanism for reviewing decisions on membership. |
| (3) Exception relating to consent " Where the council of a band makes a by-law under paragraph 81(p.4) bringing this subsection into effect in respect of the band, the consents required under subsections (1) and (2) shall be given by a majority of the members of the band who are of the full age of eighteen years. |
| (4) Acquired rights " Membership rules established by a band under this section may not deprive any person who had the right to have his name entered in the Band List for that band, immediately prior to the time the rules were established, of the right to have his name so entered by reason only of a situation that existed or an action that was taken before the rules came into force.(5) Idem " For greater certainty, subsection (4) applies in respect of a person who was entitled to have his name entered in the Band List under paragraph 11(1)(c) immediately before the band assumed control of the Band List if that person does not subsequently cease to be entitled to have his name entered in the Band List. |
__________________
1The full title is the "Mohawks of Gibson Citizenship Code"
2R.S.C. 1985, c. I-5, as amended
3Brown, Donald and Evans, John. Judicial Review of Administrative Action in Canada. Toronto: Canvasback Publishing, 1999.
6Decaire v. Wahta Mohawks First Nation (1996), 124 F.T.R. 241 (T.D.)