West v. Cold Lake First Nations

West v. Cold Lake First Nations

The Tribunal dismissed the complaint because the act complained of—the elections officer's rejection of the nomination and enforcement of the band Election Law—did not constitute a "service customarily available to the general public" under s.5 CHRA but was a compliance/enforcement step tied to the Nation's election law; challenges to the law or to procedural fairness belong in the Federal Court, and the retaliation allegation failed on the facts (no causal link established).

Citation
2021 CHRT 1
Parties
Complainant: Bonnie West; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Cold Lake First Nations
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Canadian Human Rights Act Complaint / Final Decision (tribunal)
Outcome
Complaint dismissed in its entirety
Legal Topics
Discrimination in Provision of Services, Family Status, Race and National or Ethnic Origin, Retaliation/reprisal, Tribunal Jurisdiction and Scope, Judicial Review Vs Tribunal Competence
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Administrative Law Indigenous and Aboriginal Law Election Law Public Law Discrimination in Provision of Services Family Status Race and National or Ethnic Origin +3 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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bonnie West

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Cold Lake First Nations

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Canadian Human Rights Act Complaint / Final Decision (tribunal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the rejection of a band council nomination and related vetting amounts to a "service customarily available to the general public" under s.5 CHRA
  2. 2 Whether the application or content of the Cold Lake First Nations Election Law is properly within Tribunal jurisdiction under s.5 CHRA
  3. 3 Whether CLFN retaliated under s.14.1 CHRA by causing or permitting adverse treatment of the complainant's daughter

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal dismissed the complaint because the act complained of—the elections officer's rejection of the nomination and enforcement of the band Election Law—did not constitute a "service customarily available to the general public" under s.5 CHRA but was a compliance/enforcement step tied to the Nation's election law; challenges to the law or to procedural fairness belong in the Federal Court, and the retaliation allegation failed on the facts (no causal link established).

Court Disposition

Complaint dismissed in its entirety

Orders

  • Complaint dismissed pursuant to s.53(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act
  • No remedies or relief granted to the complainant