Ka-Nowpasikow v. Poundmaker Cree Nation

Ka-Nowpasikow v. Poundmaker Cree Nation

Tribunal found complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination on the intersection of being a single man and living with a disability; respondent failed to prove a bona fide justification or undue hardship because it did not demonstrate that reasonable steps were taken to accommodate or that the cost of appropriate accommodation had been assessed; accordingly complaint allowed in part and remedies awarded including monetary compensation and public interest orders to develop and implement a housing policy and training.

Citation
2023 CHRT 38
Parties
Complainant: Earl Ka-Nowpasikow; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Poundmaker Cree Nation
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Housing Discrimination / Decision (final)
Outcome
Complaint allowed in part: discrimination established on basis of intersection of single man and disability; family membership claim dismissed; respondent failed to justify discrimination; remedies ordered.
Legal Topics
Discrimination in Housing, Duty to Accommodate, Bona Fide Justification, Undue Hardship, Customary Law and First Nations Governance, Remedies and Compensation, Enforceability of Tribunal Orders
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Administrative Law Indigenous Law Housing Law Disability Law Discrimination in Housing Duty to Accommodate Bona Fide Justification +4 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 9 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Earl Ka-Nowpasikow

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Poundmaker Cree Nation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Housing Discrimination / Decision (final)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether complainant has protected characteristics under the CHRA
  2. 2 Whether complainant suffered adverse treatment in housing (denial of repairs or new home)
  3. 3 Whether protected characteristics were a factor in the adverse treatment

Ratio Decidendi

Tribunal found complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination on the intersection of being a single man and living with a disability; respondent failed to prove a bona fide justification or undue hardship because it did not demonstrate that reasonable steps were taken to accommodate or that the cost of appropriate accommodation had been assessed; accordingly complaint allowed in part and remedies awarded including monetary compensation and public interest orders to develop and implement a housing policy and training.

Court Disposition

Complaint allowed in part: discrimination established on basis of intersection of single man and disability; family membership claim dismissed; respondent failed to justify discrimination; remedies ordered.

Orders

  • Respondent pay Complainant $10,000 for pain and suffering within 90 days of decision
  • Respondent pay Complainant $5,000 for reckless discrimination within 90 days of decision