Tabor v. Millbrook First Nation

Tabor v. Millbrook First Nation

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the complaint prior to a full hearing because it did not have sufficient information to determine the application of former section 67; resolving whether impugned decisions were required or permitted by the Indian Act requires evidence and findings of fact, therefore the motion to dismiss will be decided after a full hearing and the parties may adduce evidence and make final arguments on the motion as part of the merits hearing.

Citation
2014 CHRT 21
Parties
Complainant: Stacy Lee Tabor; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Millbrook First Nation
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint Under the Canadian Human Rights Act / Interim Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Prior to Hearing
Outcome
Motion to dismiss deferred pending full hearing; complaint proceeds to hearing
Legal Topics
Discrimination, Marital Status, Sex Discrimination, Retaliation, Section 67 (indian Act Immunity)
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Administrative Law Indigenous Law Discrimination Marital Status Sex Discrimination Retaliation Section 67 (indian Act Immunity)

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stacy Lee Tabor

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Millbrook First Nation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint Under the Canadian Human Rights Act / Interim Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Prior to Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether former section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act barred the Tribunal from adjudicating the complaint against a First Nation when the complaint was filed in 2008
  2. 2 Whether the complaint should be dismissed without a full hearing on the basis of section 67
  3. 3 Whether factual findings are required to determine if the impugned actions were required or permitted by the Indian Act

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the complaint prior to a full hearing because it did not have sufficient information to determine the application of former section 67; resolving whether impugned decisions were required or permitted by the Indian Act requires evidence and findings of fact, therefore the motion to dismiss will be decided after a full hearing and the parties may adduce evidence and make final arguments on the motion as part of the merits hearing.

Court Disposition

Motion to dismiss deferred pending full hearing; complaint proceeds to hearing

Orders

  • Decision on Respondent's motion to dismiss under former s.67 deferred until after the full hearing pursuant to Rule 3(2)(c)
  • Parties may bring evidence in support of the motion and address the motion in their final arguments at the hearing