Dinning v. Veterans Affairs Canada

Dinning v. Veterans Affairs Canada

The Tribunal dismissed the complaint as entirely moot because, after the Respondent's June 10, 2011 ruling recognizing a common‑law partner and dependent child, there was no longer a live controversy affecting the Complainant or his son; the record did not identify other victims or consented individuals such that the Tribunal could properly adjudicate the statutory validity/operability challenge or award public interest remedies, and judicial resources and separation of powers weighed against deciding a purely academic dispute.

Citation
2011 CHRT 20
Parties
Complainant: Lincoln Dinning; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Veterans Affairs Canada
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint (canadian Human Rights Tribunal) / Decision (2011) Dismissed as Moot
Outcome
Complaint dismissed as moot; Complaint not substantiated
Legal Topics
Mootness, Discrimination (family Status; Marital Status), Death Benefit Eligibility, Public Interest Remedies
Source Language
English
Human Rights Administrative Law Veterans Benefits Statutory Interpretation Mootness Discrimination (family Status; Marital Status) Death Benefit Eligibility Public Interest Remedies

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lincoln Dinning

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Veterans Affairs Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint (canadian Human Rights Tribunal) / Decision (2011) Dismissed as Moot

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether denial of the New Veterans Charter death benefit to parents/siblings of single Canadian Forces members constitutes discrimination under s.5 of the CHRA on grounds of family status or marital status
  2. 2 Whether the complaint remains a live controversy or is moot after the Respondent recognized a common-law partner and dependent child
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to decide a now-moot issue and to grant public interest remedies

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal dismissed the complaint as entirely moot because, after the Respondent's June 10, 2011 ruling recognizing a common‑law partner and dependent child, there was no longer a live controversy affecting the Complainant or his son; the record did not identify other victims or consented individuals such that the Tribunal could properly adjudicate the statutory validity/operability challenge or award public interest remedies, and judicial resources and separation of powers weighed against deciding a purely academic dispute.

Court Disposition

Complaint dismissed as moot; Complaint not substantiated

Orders

  • The Complaint is dismissed as moot