A status Indian respondent challenged the constitutionality of Section 41 of the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996 (FRSEAA), arguing that enforcement proceedings by the Director against him for spousal support arrears violated his rights under the Indian Act.
The respondent contended that the enforcement measures impaired his vested legal rights as a status Indian under Sections 29 and 89(1) of the Indian Act.
The court dismissed the constitutional challenge, finding that the Director's enforcement actions were authorized by Section 89(1) of the Indian Act because the Director acts "for the benefit of" the support recipient, who was also a status Indian.
The court also found that Section 88 of the Indian Act permitted the application of the provincial FRSEAA as a law of general application.
