Canada (Attorney General) v. Maracle et al., (2012) 404 F.T.R. 173 (FC)

• Judge: Bédard, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 25, 2011
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2012), 404 F.T.R. 173 (FC);2012 FC 105

Can. (A.G.) v. Maracle (2012), 404 F.T.R. 173 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] F.T.R. TBEd. FE.004

The Attorney General of Canada (applicant) v. Chief R. Donald Maracle in his personal capacity and in a representative capacity on behalf of the members of the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte, Chief William Montour in his personal capacity and in a representative capacity on behalf of the members of the Six Nations of the Grand River, Chief Joel Abram in his personal capacity and in a representative capacity on behalf of the members of the Oneida Nation of the Thames and Chief Hazel Fox-Recollet in her personal capacity and in a representative capacity on behalf of the members of Wikwemikong Unceded Indian Reserve (respondents)

(T-8-11; 2012 FC 105)

Indexed As: Canada (Attorney General) v. Maracle et al.

Federal Court

Bédard, J.

January 27, 2012.

Summary:

The respondents presented themselves as four of the five largest First Nations in Ontario. They filed a complaint before the Canadian Human Rights Commission pursuant to s. 5 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, alleging discrimination by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) on the basis of national or ethnic origin. The complaint alleged that the funding policies of INAC had an adverse effect on the largest First Nations as compared to smaller First Nations in Ontario. The Attorney General of Canada objected to the Commission's jurisdiction to deal with the complaint on the basis that the matter of the complaint fell beyond its jurisdiction (s. 41(1)(c) of the Act). The Attorney General argued that the distinctions created by the funding formulas were not based on ethnic or national origin but rather on the size of the First Nations, which was not a prohibited ground of discrimination pursuant to s. 3 of the Act. The Commission decided to deal with the complaint, concluding that it was not plain and obvious that the complaint was beyond the Commission's jurisdiction. The Attorney General of Canada applied for judicial review of the Commission's decision.

The Federal Court dismissed the application.

Civil Rights - Topic 1034

Discrimination - Race and national or ethnic origin - Indians - [See Civil Rights - Topic 7069 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 7069

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Commissions or boards - Jurisdiction - Complaints - General - The respondents presented themselves as four of the five largest First Nations in Ontario - They filed a complaint before the Canadian Human Rights Commission pursuant to s. 5 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, alleging discrimination by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) on the basis of national or ethnic origin - The complaint alleged that the funding policies of INAC had an adverse effect on the largest First Nations as compared to smaller First Nations in Ontario - The Attorney General of Canada objected to the Commission's jurisdiction to deal with the complaint on the basis that the matter of the complaint fell beyond its jurisdiction (s. 41(1)(c) of the Act) - The Attorney General argued that the distinctions created by the funding formulas were not based on ethnic or national origin but rather on the size of the First Nations, which was not a prohibited ground of discrimination pursuant to s. 3 of the Act - The Commission decided to deal with the complaint, concluding that it was not plain and obvious that the complaint was beyond the Commission's jurisdiction - The Attorney General of Canada applied for judicial review - The Federal Court dismissed the application - The question of whether a complaint fell beyond the Commission's jurisdiction involved an assessment of whether the complaint disclosed a sufficient link to a prohibited ground of discrimination which was a question of mixed fact and law - The Commission's decision was reviewable under the reasonableness standard of review - The respondents' complaint disclosed a link, although a tenuous one, between the disadvantageous effects of INAC's funding formulas and the fact that they were members of specific First Nations identifiable by their national or ethnic origin - It was reasonable for the Commission to conclude that it was not plain and obvious that the complaint fell beyond its jurisdiction.

Civil Rights - Topic 7115

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Practice - Judicial review (incl. standard of review) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 7069 ].

Cases Noticed:

Canada (Attorney General) v. Mowat (2011), 422 N.R. 248; 2011 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 12].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Watkin (2007), 313 F.T.R. 318; 2007 FC 745, affd. (2008), 378 N.R. 268; 2008 FCA 170, refd to. [para. 13].

Hicks v. Canada (Attorney General) (2008), 334 F.T.R. 260; 2008 FC 1059, refd to. [para. 13].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 18].

Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339; 385 N.R. 206; 2009 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 18].

Comstock v. Public Service Alliance of Canada et al. (2007), 310 F.T.R. 277; 2007 FC 335, refd to. [para. 19].

Hartjes v. Canada (Attorney General) (2008), 334 F.T.R. 277; 2008 FC 830, refd to. [para. 19].

McGill University Health Centre (Montreal General Hospital) v. Syndicat des employés de l'Hôpital général de Montréal et al., [2007] 1 S.C.R. 161; 356 N.R. 177; 2007 SCC 4, refd to. [para. 28].

Armstrong v. British Columbia (Minister of Health) (2010), 283 B.C.A.C. 167; 480 W.A.C. 167; 2 B.C.L.R.(5th) 290; 2010 BCCA 56, leave to appeal refused (2010), 410 N.R. 383; 298 B.C.A.C. 319; 505 W.A.C. 319 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 28].

Mandla v. Dowell Lee, [1983] 1 A.C. 548;1 All E.R. 1062 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 32].

King-Ansell v. Police, [1979] 2 N.Z.L.R. 531, refd to. [para. 32].

Squamish et al. v. Canada et al. (2001), 207 F.T.R. 1; 2001 FCT 480, refd to. [para. 32].

Cooper v. Canadian Human Rights Commission, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 854; 204 N.R. 1; 140 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 38].

Canada Post Corp. v. Canadian Human Rights Commission et al. (1997), 130 F.T.R. 241; 71 A.C.W.S.(3d) 935 (T.D.), affd. (1999), 245 N.R. 397 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

Michon-Hamelin v. Canada (Attorney General), [2007] F.T.R. Uned. 869; 2007 FC 1258, refd to. [para. 40].

Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc. - see Hunt v. T & N plc et al.

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 321, refd to. [para. 42].

PPSC Enterprises Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [2007] F.T.R. Uned. 526; 159 A.C.W.S.(3d) 299; 2007 FC 784, refd to. [para. 47].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6, sect. 41(1)(c) [para. 7].

Counsel:

Alexander Gay and Helen Gray, for the applicant;

Patrick Macklem, for the respondents.

Solicitors of Record:

Myles J. Kirvan, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the applicant;

Patrick Macklem, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondents.

This application was heard on October 25, 2011, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Bédard, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on January 27, 2012.