| Case name: |
Osoyoos Indian Band v. Oliver (Town) |
|
|
|
| Jurisdiction: |
Canada - Federal |
|
| Court: |
Supreme Court of Canada |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Parties: |
Name |
|
Appearing as |
| |
British Columbia |
|
Other |
| |
Canada (Attorney General) |
|
Other |
| |
Oliver (Town) |
|
Other |
| |
Osoyoos Indian Band |
|
Other |
| |
Squamish Indian Band |
|
Other |
|
| Decision makers: |
Name |
Designation |
|
Arbour, Louise |
J. |
| |
Bastarache, Michel |
J. |
| |
Binnie, William Ian Corneil |
J. |
| |
Gonthier, Charles Doherty |
J. |
| |
Iacobucci, Frank |
J. |
| |
L'Heureux-Dube, Claire |
J. |
| |
LeBel, Louis |
J. |
| |
Major, John C. |
J. |
| |
McLachlin, Beverley Marion |
C.J.C. |
|
| Lawyers: |
Name |
|
Appearing for |
| |
Cockrill, Gregory H. |
|
Other |
| |
Donegan, Gerald |
|
Other |
| |
Gordon, Hunter W. |
|
Other |
| |
King, Mary L. |
|
Other |
| |
Kirchner, F. Matthew |
|
Other |
| |
Leadem, Timothy P. |
|
Other |
| |
Mandell, M. Louise |
|
Other |
| |
Ostrove, Clarine E. |
|
Other |
| |
Pinder, Leslie J. |
|
Other |
| |
Rich, John R. |
|
Other |
| |
Ring, Kathleen M. |
|
Other |
| |
Williamson, Barry S. |
|
Other |
| |
Yearwood, Paul E. |
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Decision: |
Second appeal from a stated case in a property taxation matter under the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-5. At issue was whether a right of way granted to the Province of British Columbia in 1957 was a fee simple interest or a lesser interest in land similar to an easement. The right of way extended through an Indian Reserve and had been granted pursuant to the expropriation provisions of the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 149, and the Water Act, R.S.B.C. 1948, c. 361, for purposes of a concrete irrigation canal. The 1957 Order in Council authorizing the grant of the right of way did not clearly state the nature of the interest. However if the interest was an easement then the land was still part of the reserve and the interest and improvements constructed on the right of way were therefore taxable. If the interest was a fee simple interest, then the land was no longer part of the reserve and not subject to the Band's taxation by-laws.
A majority of the court held that the interest acquired by the Province was an easement and the land was still subject to taxation by the Indian Band. The appeal was allowed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ExLaw citation: |
[2001] EXLAW 342 |
|
| Neutral citation: |
2001 SCC 85 |
|
| Parallel citations: |
(2001) 110 ACWS (3d) 784 |
| |
(2001) 160 BCAC 171 |
| |
(2001) 95 BCLR (3d) 22 |
| |
2001 CarswellBC 2703 |
| |
(2001) 206 DLR (4th) 385 |
| |
(2001) 75 LCR 1 |
| |
(2001) 278 NR 201 |
| |
(2001) 45 RPR (3d) 1 |
| |
[2001] SCJ No. 82 |
| |
[2001] 3 SCR 746 |
| |
(2001) 261 WAC 171 |
| |
[2002] 1 CNLR 271 |
| |
[2002] 1 WWR 23 |
|
|
|
|
|
