Background
Allan Barry Laboucan, a self-represented Indigenous man of Cree descent who is not registered under the Indian Act, alleged that he descended from Treaty 8 signatory Duncan Testawich. After unsuccessfully challenging federal tax assessments in the Tax Court of Canada, he sued Canada in Federal Court to stop the Canada Revenue Agency from requiring him to file returns or collecting his tax debts.
Laboucan relied principally on the Treaty 8 Commissioners’ 1899 report, which recorded assurances that the treaty did not open the way to taxation and would not confine Indigenous people to reserves. He argued that those assurances formed part of Treaty 8, were constitutionally protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and rendered federal income-tax requirements inapplicable to him. He also invoked the Royal Proclamation of 1763, the honour of the Crown, UNDRIP, and a notice challenging Income Tax Act collection provisions.
Canada moved for summary judgment under Rule 215 of the Federal Courts Rules. It argued that the Federal Court of Appeal had already rejected a general Treaty 8 tax exemption in Canada v. Benoit, 2003 FCA 236, and that Laboucan had supplied no new historical evidence capable of supporting a different result.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Court granted Canada summary judgment because there was no genuine issue for trial. Benoit remained binding authority that the evidence—including the Commissioners’ report—did not establish a shared intention that Treaty 8 beneficiaries would enjoy a general exemption from taxation. Although later authority recognized that the question could potentially be revisited on materially different evidence, Laboucan relied on documents already considered in Benoit and produced no new evidentiary foundation for his proposed treaty right.
The Court also rejected Laboucan’s attempt to halt CRA collection. The Income Tax Act permits the Minister to collect tax debts through court proceedings or the Act’s administrative mechanisms, including garnishment, without first obtaining a Federal Court order. Statutory collection stays apply in specified objection and Tax Court appeal circumstances, not merely because a constitutional or treaty-rights action is pending in Federal Court; Laboucan showed that no applicable stay remained.
Laboucan’s notice of constitutional question did not itself create a triable issue or relieve him of the obligation to present evidence supporting his claim. His reliance on section 35, the honour of the Crown, the Royal Proclamation, peaceful protest, and UNDRIP did not overcome Benoit or establish that the challenged Income Tax Act provisions were invalid or inapplicable to him.
Key Takeaways
- Treaty 8 does not, on the evidentiary record previously considered in Benoit, confer a general exemption from federal taxation.
- A claimant seeking to revisit that conclusion must present materially new evidence; legal arguments and the Commissioners’ report alone do not create a genuine issue for trial.
- A Federal Court constitutional action does not automatically stay CRA collection, and filing a notice of constitutional question cannot substitute for evidence supporting the asserted constitutional right.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms the continuing force of Benoit while recognizing that a Treaty 8 tax-immunity claim would require a substantially different historical record. Courts will not send such a claim to trial merely because it is framed through section 35, the honour of the Crown, or UNDRIP.
It also underscores the separation between challenging a tax liability and staying its collection. Unless a statutory stay applies or a court grants an injunction, the CRA may continue using the collection mechanisms authorized by the Income Tax Act while related litigation proceeds.