Matson et al. v. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada

Matson et al. v. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada

The CHRT does not have constitutional jurisdiction to entertain a stand-alone Charter challenge to section 6 of the Indian Act that is not linked to determining whether a discriminatory practice under the CHRA has occurred; therefore the Notice of Constitutional Question is beyond the CHRT's mandate and must be struck.

Citation
2012 CHRT 19
Parties
Complainant: Jeremy Eugene Matson; Complainant: Mardy Eugene Matson; Complainant: Melody Katrina Schneider (nee Matson); Commission (respondent on Motion): Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent (moving Party): Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (now Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada)
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Proceeding (chra Complaint) / Ruling on Motion to Strike Notice of Constitutional Question
Outcome
Respondent's motion allowed; Complainants' Notice of Constitutional Question struck out
Legal Topics
Charter Challenge, Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Equality Rights (s.15), Indian Act S.6, Notice of Constitutional Question, Remedies and Declarations of Invalidity
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Indigenous Law Charter Challenge Jurisdiction of Tribunal Equality Rights (s.15) Indian Act S.6 +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jeremy Eugene Matson

Complainant

Mardy Eugene Matson

Complainant

Melody Katrina Schneider (nee Matson)

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission (respondent on Motion)

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (now Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada)

Respondent (moving Party)

Procedural Posture

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Proceeding (chra Complaint) / Ruling on Motion to Strike Notice of Constitutional Question

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CHRT has jurisdiction to entertain a stand-alone Charter challenge to section 6 of the Indian Act
  2. 2 Whether the Notice of Constitutional Question is linked to determining whether a discriminatory practice under the CHRA has occurred
  3. 3 Whether the CHRT has power to strike down legislation or make general declarations of constitutional invalidity

Ratio Decidendi

The CHRT does not have constitutional jurisdiction to entertain a stand-alone Charter challenge to section 6 of the Indian Act that is not linked to determining whether a discriminatory practice under the CHRA has occurred; therefore the Notice of Constitutional Question is beyond the CHRT's mandate and must be struck.

Court Disposition

Respondent's motion allowed; Complainants' Notice of Constitutional Question struck out

Orders

  • Strike out the whole of the Complainants' Notice of Constitutional Question dated January 19, 2012