Lock et al. v. Peters First Nation

Lock et al. v. Peters First Nation

The Tribunal held that Peters First Nation’s processing of membership requests constituted a service under s.5 CHRA; age and family status were factors in the adverse processing of Gordon, Deborah, Carol and Neil’s membership requests and amounted to discrimination; Peters First Nation failed to demonstrate a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2023 CHRT 55
Parties
Complainant: Gordon Lock; Complainant: Deborah Senger; Complainant: Harold Lock; Complainant: Carol Raymond; Complainant: Neil Peters; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Peters First Nation
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Discrimination in Membership Processing / Final Decision on Merits and Remedies
Outcome
Complaints of Gordon Lock, Deborah Senger, Carol Raymond and Neil Peters substantiated; Harold Lock not substantiated (temporal scope)
Legal Topics
Membership Discrimination, Family Status, Age Discrimination, Bill C 31 Reinstatement, Service Provision Under CHRA, Bona Fide Justification, Remedies and Compensation, Customary Law (s.1.2)
Source Language
english
Human Rights Law Indigenous Law Administrative Law Membership Law Remedy Law Membership Discrimination Family Status Age Discrimination +5 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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gordon Lock

Complainant

Deborah Senger

Complainant

Harold Lock

Complainant

Carol Raymond

Complainant

Neil Peters

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Peters First Nation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Discrimination in Membership Processing / Final Decision on Merits and Remedies

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether processing of First Nation membership applications constitutes a service under s.5 CHRA
  2. 2 Whether Complainants were adversely affected by Peters First Nation’s processing of membership requests
  3. 3 Whether age or family status (and other enumerated grounds) were factors in the adverse treatment

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that Peters First Nation’s processing of membership requests constituted a service under s.5 CHRA; age and family status were factors in the adverse processing of Gordon, Deborah, Carol and Neil’s membership requests and amounted to discrimination; Peters First Nation failed to demonstrate a customary law justifying an age restriction under s.1.2 and failed to establish a bona fide justification or good faith for the impugned criteria; accordingly the Tribunal ordered cessation of discriminatory processing, reprocessing of the four complainants’ applications within 30 days, systemic orders to stop age/family status criteria, revision of the application form with the...

Court Disposition

Complaints of Gordon Lock, Deborah Senger, Carol Raymond and Neil Peters substantiated; Harold Lock not substantiated (temporal scope)

Orders

  • Peters First Nation shall cease discriminating against Gordon Lock, Deborah Senger, Carol Raymond and Neil Peters in the provision of membership-related services (s.53(2)(a) CHRA)
  • Peters First Nation shall reprocess the membership applications of Gordon Lock, Deborah Senger, Carol Raymond and Neil Peters in a non-discriminatory manner within 30 days (s.53(2)(b) CHRA)