Shirley v. Mikisew Cree First Nation

Shirley v. Mikisew Cree First Nation

The amended SOP introduced systemic allegations that lack a sufficient nexus to the original complaint (which is limited to the November 1, 2018 incident and the subsequent suspension), so paragraphs 14(b),(f),(h),(i) and paragraphs 20(b)(i)-(iii) related to Federal Court costs are outside the scope and must be...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2025 CHRT 78
Parties
Complainant: Rubi-Helen Shirley; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Mikisew Cree First Nation
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 August 2025
Procedural Posture
CHRA Human Rights Complaint / Ruling on Motion to Strike / Scope of Complaint
Outcome
Motion granted in part and denied in part: specified systemic-allegation paragraphs and Federal Court cost paragraphs struck; remaining paragraphs retained; Tribunal declines to award Federal Court legal costs.
Legal Topics
Scope of Complaint, Systemic Discrimination, Sexual Harassment, Costs, Amendment of Pleadings
Source Language
english
Human Rights Administrative Law Employment Law Tribunal Procedure Scope of Complaint Systemic Discrimination Sexual Harassment Costs +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rubi-Helen Shirley

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Mikisew Cree First Nation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

CHRA Human Rights Complaint / Ruling on Motion to Strike / Scope of Complaint

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the scope of the complaint?
  2. 2 Whether specified paragraphs in the amended Statement of Particulars introduce out-of-scope systemic allegations and must be struck
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal can award legal costs the Federal Court declined to award

Ratio Decidendi

The amended SOP introduced systemic allegations that lack a sufficient nexus to the original complaint (which is limited to the November 1, 2018 incident and the subsequent suspension), so paragraphs 14(b),(f),(h),(i) and paragraphs 20(b)(i)-(iii) related to Federal Court costs are outside the scope and must be struck; the Tribunal also cannot award legal costs the Federal Court declined to grant because it lacks authority and doing so would undermine finality of the Federal Court's decision.

Court Disposition

Motion granted in part and denied in part: specified systemic-allegation paragraphs and Federal Court cost paragraphs struck; remaining paragraphs retained; Tribunal declines to award Federal Court legal costs.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 14(b), 14(f), 14(h) and 14(i) of the amended Statement of Particulars are struck.
  • Paragraphs 20(b)(i), 20(b)(ii) and 20(b)(iii) of the amended Statement of Particulars are struck.