Tabor v Millbrook First Nation

Tabor v Millbrook First Nation

Tribunal has jurisdiction because the contested hiring and related conduct were not shown to be exercises of authority expressly granted by the Indian Act provisions relied upon, s.67 therefore does not apply; no adequate evidence established a protected Aboriginal or treaty right to manage fishing resources or personnel under s.35(1), and the retaliation allegations under s.14.1 CHRA are independently justiciable.

Citation
2015 CHRT 6
Parties
Complainant: Stacy Lee Tabor; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Millbrook First Nation
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Canadian Human Rights Act Complaint / Jurisdictional Motion / Ruling on Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (motion Dismissed)
Outcome
Millbrook First Nation's motion challenging Tribunal jurisdiction dismissed; Tribunal retains jurisdiction over complaints including retaliation allegations.
Legal Topics
Section 67 CHRA and Its Interpretation, Application of Indian Act Provisions (ss.18, 20, 61, 73, 81), Section 35(1) Charter/constitutional Aboriginal and Treaty Rights, Retaliation (s.14.1 Chra), Sex and Marital Status Discrimination, Tribunal Jurisdiction
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Indigenous Law Constitutional Law Employment Law Section 67 CHRA and Its Interpretation Application of Indian Act Provisions (ss.18,20,61,73,81) Section 35(1) Charter/constitutional Aboriginal and Treaty Rights Retaliation (s.14.1 Chra) +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 5 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stacy Lee Tabor

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Millbrook First Nation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Canadian Human Rights Act Complaint / Jurisdictional Motion / Ruling on Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (motion Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.67 CHRA ousts Tribunal jurisdiction over Millbrook First Nation hiring and fishery management decisions
  2. 2 Whether provisions of the Indian Act (ss.61(1),73(1)(a),81(1)(o),20(1),18(1)) expressly authorize the contested acts such that they are immune from CHRA scrutiny
  3. 3 Whether alleged management of fishery and personnel choices constitute an Aboriginal or treaty right under s.35(1) and if any prima facie infringement exists

Ratio Decidendi

Tribunal has jurisdiction because the contested hiring and related conduct were not shown to be exercises of authority expressly granted by the Indian Act provisions relied upon, s.67 therefore does not apply; no adequate evidence established a protected Aboriginal or treaty right to manage fishing resources or personnel under s.35(1), and the retaliation allegations under s.14.1 CHRA are independently justiciable.

Court Disposition

Millbrook First Nation's motion challenging Tribunal jurisdiction dismissed; Tribunal retains jurisdiction over complaints including retaliation allegations.

Orders

  • Millbrook First Nation's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is dismissed.