Cushley et al. v. Veterans Affairs Canada

Cushley et al. v. Veterans Affairs Canada

The complaints are a direct challenge to statutory eligibility criteria and do not allege discriminatory provision of a service by VAC; s.5 of the Canadian Human Rights Act does not permit direct challenges to legislation where there is no discretion or ambiguous statutory interpretation to be applied by officials,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2022 CHRT 21
Parties
Complainant: Errol William Cushley; Complainant: Jihan Falah; Complainant: Raynald Bouthillier; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Veterans Affairs Canada
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint Under the Canadian Human Rights Act / Preliminary Motion to Dismiss (jurisdictional Threshold)
Outcome
Respondent's motion allowed; complaints dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and no reasonable prospect of success
Legal Topics
Family Status, Marital Status, Jurisdictional Scope of S.5, Death Benefits, Challenge to Legislation Vs. Service
Source Language
english
Human Rights Law Administrative Law Veterans Benefits Statutory Interpretation Family Status Marital Status Jurisdictional Scope of S.5 Death Benefits +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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Errol William Cushley

Complainant

Jihan Falah

Complainant

Raynald Bouthillier

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Veterans Affairs Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint Under the Canadian Human Rights Act / Preliminary Motion to Dismiss (jurisdictional Threshold)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the complaints constitute a direct challenge to federal legislation or an allegation of discriminatory provision of a service
  2. 2 Whether section 5 of the Canadian Human Rights Act applies to a direct challenge to legislation
  3. 3 Whether the complainants have a reasonable prospect of success given the Tribunal's lack of jurisdiction over pure legislative challenges

Ratio Decidendi

The complaints are a direct challenge to statutory eligibility criteria and do not allege discriminatory provision of a service by VAC; s.5 of the Canadian Human Rights Act does not permit direct challenges to legislation where there is no discretion or ambiguous statutory interpretation to be applied by officials, therefore the complaints have no reasonable prospect of success and must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Respondent's motion allowed; complaints dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and no reasonable prospect of success

Orders

  • Respondent's motion to dismiss allowed
  • Complaints dismissed