Malec, Malec, Kaltush, Ishpatao, Tettaut, Malec, Mestépapéo, Kaltush v. Conseil des Montagnais de Natashquan

Malec, Malec, Kaltush, Ishpatao, Tettaut, Malec, Mestépapéo, Kaltush v. Conseil des Montagnais de Natashquan

The Tribunal found the allowance scheme differentiated on the basis of residency (50 km non‑resident rule), not race or ethnic origin; residency is not an enumerated prohibited ground under s.3(1) CHRA, so no prima facie discrimination on race was established; alternatively, respondent’s measures were justified by severe financial constraints and administration by a third‑party manager, so relief was not warranted.

Citation
2014 CHRT 33
Parties
Complainant: Évelyne Malec; Complainant: Sylvie Malec; Complainant: Marcelline Kaltush; Complainant: Monique Ishpatao; Complainant: Anne B. Tettaut; Complainant: Anna Malec; Complainant: Germaine Méténapéo; Complainant: Estelle Kaltush; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Conseil des Montagnais de Natashquan
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Canadian Human Rights Act Complaint (employment/benefits) / Final Decision (tribunal)
Outcome
Complaint dismissed
Legal Topics
Race Discrimination, Employment Benefits, Residency Criteria, Justification/undue Hardship
Source Language
English
Human Rights Employment Law Administrative Law Race Discrimination Employment Benefits Residency Criteria Justification/undue Hardship

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Évelyne Malec

Complainant

Sylvie Malec

Complainant

Marcelline Kaltush

Complainant

Monique Ishpatao

Complainant

Anne B. Tettaut

Complainant

Anna Malec

Complainant

Germaine Méténapéo

Complainant

Estelle Kaltush

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Conseil des Montagnais de Natashquan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Canadian Human Rights Act Complaint (employment/benefits) / Final Decision (tribunal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether differential payment of isolated post, trip and housing allowances constituted discrimination on the prohibited ground of race or ethnic origin under the CHRA
  2. 2 Whether residency (50 km rule) is a prohibited ground of discrimination or a legitimate, non‑prohibited criterion
  3. 3 Whether the respondent could justify any adverse differentiation on the basis of financial necessity and administrative measures (third‑party manager and recovery plan)

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found the allowance scheme differentiated on the basis of residency (50 km non‑resident rule), not race or ethnic origin; residency is not an enumerated prohibited ground under s.3(1) CHRA, so no prima facie discrimination on race was established; alternatively, respondent’s measures were justified by severe financial constraints and administration by a third‑party manager, so relief was not warranted.

Court Disposition

Complaint dismissed