2019 CHRT 20 (CanLII) | Kamalatisit v. Sandy Lake First Nation | CanLII

Tags

Top Highlights

• The Nation argues that the Chief and council followed legal traditions and customary laws. Yet, Elder Kakegamic indicated that it would be customary for the Chief and council to speak to the Complainant about her behaviour prior to any action being taken. According to the evidence disclosed, there was no approach from the Chief or council to defuse the alleged tensions if these tensions existed.

• The Commission’s counsel argued that discrimination could be found under s.6, namely the denial of residential accommodation. The Complainant’s complaint was based on multiple prohibited grounds of discrimination, namely marital and family status, sex, race, and/or national or ethnic origin

• In this context, I find that the evidence establishes on a balance of probabilities that the Complainant was denied occupancy of a residential accommodation under s.6 of the Act and that it was based on a prohibited ground namely, family/marital status. As previously stated, there was little, if any, evidence called with respect to the other prohibited grounds alleged.

• The Nation’s evidence was poor, unconvincing, and based upon hearsay and innuendo.