Jack Woodward

The appellant First Nation passed assessment and taxation by-laws pursuant to the Indian Act and assessed taxes against the respondent, a provincial Crown agent operating a utility on the reserve.

The respondent refused to pay, arguing immunity under s. 125 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the by-laws imposed taxes rather than regulatory charges, as they were designed to raise revenue for general local purposes and were not connected to a regulatory scheme.

Consequently, s. 125 rendered the by-laws constitutionally inapplicable to the respondent.

The appellant Indian band sought a declaration that a permit granting a right-of-way for an electric power transmission line across its reserve was void.

The permit, issued under s. 28(2) of the Indian Act, was granted for 'such period of time as the right-of-way is required'.

The band argued that this indefinite period amounted to a permanent alienation requiring a formal surrender under s. 37 of the Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the permit was validly issued under s. 28(2), as the duration of the easement, while indeterminate, was bounded by an ascertainable event (when the line is no longer required) and did not constitute a grant in perpetuity.

Appeal from an order permitting amendment of pleadings in litigation arising from alleged impacts of railway construction on river habitat and asserted Aboriginal and Indian Act rights.

The appellants argued the proposed amended pleadings were defective because the claims were communal in nature and could not be advanced as personal actions by members of Nations.

The Court held that authority to bring the claims and the personal entitlement of members were questions of fact or mixed fact and law best determined by the trial judge.

The appeal was dismissed and the amendments were allowed to stand.