Liu v. Public Safety Canada

Liu v. Public Safety Canada

The Tribunal denied PSC’s motion because the HRO Report and Commission referral demonstrate that elements of the Original Complaint (including underfunding as raised through cited case law) were considered by the Commission, PSC received the Original Complaint, and the Referred Complaint referenced the same case...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2024 CHRT 104
Parties
Complainant: Kai Liu (on behalf of the Indigenous Police Chiefs of Ontario); Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Public Safety Canada; Interested Party: First Nations Chiefs of Police Association
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint Inquiry Under the Canadian Human Rights Act / Ruling on Scope Motion (motion Decided in Writing)
Outcome
Motion denied; underfunding allegations in the SOP are within the scope of the complaint referred to the Tribunal, but particulars may be required.
Legal Topics
Scope of Complaint, Underfunding Allegations, Referral to Tribunal, Procedural Fairness, Remedies Particulars, First Nations and Inuit Policing Program (fnipp)
Source Language
english
Human Rights Administrative Law Indigenous Law Scope of Complaint Underfunding Allegations Referral to Tribunal Procedural Fairness Remedies Particulars +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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kai Liu (on behalf of the Indigenous Police Chiefs of Ontario)

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Public Safety Canada

Respondent

First Nations Chiefs of Police Association

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint Inquiry Under the Canadian Human Rights Act / Ruling on Scope Motion (motion Decided in Writing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether underfunding allegations in the Statement of Particulars exceed the scope of the Referred Complaint
  2. 2 Whether elements of the Original Complaint were considered by the Commission/HRO and thus fall within the referral
  3. 3 Whether the remedial underfunding claims are sufficiently particularized to allow preparation for hearing

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal denied PSC’s motion because the HRO Report and Commission referral demonstrate that elements of the Original Complaint (including underfunding as raised through cited case law) were considered by the Commission, PSC received the Original Complaint, and the Referred Complaint referenced the same case law; therefore the SOP’s underfunding allegations are within the scope of the complaint, subject to the need for further particulars before hearing.

Court Disposition

Motion denied; underfunding allegations in the SOP are within the scope of the complaint referred to the Tribunal, but particulars may be required.

Orders

  • Public Safety Canada’s motion regarding scope is denied.
  • Member will convene a Case Management Conference Call to address particulars and disclosure to enable hearing preparation.