Home Page

Ms. Rivers was wounded and hurt by this differential treatment she suffered as a married in member. It is my conclusion that she be awarded damages for these hurt feelings, humiliation, and loss of self-respect. Gulzar Shivji, November 1993.

Leonie Rivers is Gitksan, and married to a member of the Squamish Indian Band. She moved to that reserve and transferred her membership. Ms. Rivers alleged that between June – December, 1986, she unsuccessfully applied for five jobs with the Band Council. The successful applicants were less qualified, but each of them was related to a member of the Band Council. Upon appeal to the Band Council, Ms. Rivers was advised “we are not just hiring band members, we only hire blood members”.

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled that the complainant was discriminated against on the basis of family status and national or ethnic origin.

It emerged from the testimony as a whole that the complainants were injured, provoked and humiliated by the actions and deeds of the members of the community and not solely by the members of the Band Council…

Roger Doyon, Andrée Marier, and Gregoire Mputu-Bijimine, June, 1995.

Marthe Gill alleged that the Band Council refused her a building permit, a hunting permit and candidacy for the Band’s Membership Code Committee because of her sex and marital status, particularly her marriage to a non-Indian prior to April 17, 1985. Marthe Gill lost her Indian status as a result of this marriage, but was reinstated under the provisions of Bill C-31.

Louise Phillipe alleged that the Band Council refused to consider her application for housing and a Montagnais language course on the basis of her sex and marital status, particularly her marriage to a non-member of the Band prior to April 17, 1985.

Jean-Marie Raphaël alleged that the Band Council sought to evict her and her children from their dwelling, refused her children admission to school, and required her to pay for transportation to an off-reserve secondary school for her children on the basis of her sex and marital status, particularly her marriage to a non-member of the Band, prior to April 17, 1985. The education related complaints were dismissed, because they had already been dealt with in a complaint before the tribunal against Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.

Nellie Cleary alleged that the Band Council refused a permit to build a house or shed on her lot on the reserve because of her sex and marital status. She further alleged that the Band Council refused to allow her to reside with her non-Indian partner in a band apartment and that she was laid off and not rehired because of her marriage to a non-Indian band member prior to April 17, 1985.

Evidence at the hearing demonstrated that the Band Council had implemented a moratorium on services for individuals who regained their Indian Status under the provisions of Bill C-31.

The Chief and Council's decisions were made and their practices imposed wilfully and all complainants have suffered in respect of feelings with self-respect as a result of their practices. This suffering continued for 7 years in the case of Darlene MacNutt.In the case of Lolita Knockwood the deprivation was for a period of only approximately 2 1/2 years but she had the additional loss of benefits from the milk and juice program. The complainant, John B. Pictou, Jr., has suffered for the same 2 1/2 year period but without the additional degradation suffered by Lolita Knockwood. Gillian Butler, Marie Crooker, Kent Morris October, 1995

Complainant Darlene MacNutt married a non-Indian in April 1987 and advised the Band’s social assistance administrator of her marriage. Between 1987 and 1994, she included her husband on her annual applications for social assistance benefits. Benefits for her husband were refused by the Band Council because he was not a Status Indian.

Complainant John B. Pictou Jr. arrived on the Shubenacadie Reserve in January 1990. He and the members of his immediate family were all Band members. Two months later, his two year old daughter and parents joined him on the reserve. Mr. Pictou made application for social assistance as a single person, and his parents made application on behalf of themselves and his daughter. In July, Mr. Pictou’s common law partner moved to the reserve. They were married shortly thereafter and made an application for social assistance on behalf of themselves and their child (eventually, two children). Benefits were provided to them for the next two years. In April 1992, the Band removed Mr. Pictou’s wife’s eligibility for benefits because she was a non-native.

Complainant Lolita Knockwood moved to the Shubenacadie Indian Reserve to reside with her common-law husband in March 1985. They married in August 1985 and eventually had three children. Mr. Knockwood and the children were registered members of the band. Lolita was non-native and ineligible for registration. Mr. Knockwood pursued gainful employment, but suffered ill health as a result of diabetes. In August 1985 he applied for social assistance and was approved. Over the next four years, social assistance benefits were provided including access to a prenatal milk and juice program and special needs requests. In April 1992, the family’s benefits were reduced and they were advised that Mrs. Knockwood was no longer eligible because she was a non-Indian.

Peter and Trudy were raised as Mohawks. They adhere to Mohawk traditions and values. Peter speaks the Mohawk language although not fluently. Trudy is a Mohawk woman. Their children are being raised as Mohawks. They attend a Mohawk immersion school. Peter already owns land in the Territory and has built a family home. And by persevering with this Complaint for the past seven years, Peter has demonstrated a firm and resolute will to be part of the community of Kahnawake and contribute to it like all other Mohawk men. That Peter or Trudy could reasonably be considered a threat to the distinct Mohawk culture of this community or its land or resource base is simply unsupportable. Stanley Sadinsky, QC and Lise Leduc

Peter Jacobs filed a complaint in 1991, alleging that the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake had been engaging in discrimination against himself and his family since 1986 on the grounds of national or ethnic origin, race, color, and family status. Mr. Jacobs and his family had been refused residency, land allotment and land rights, housing, medication, and dental privileges.

Mr. Jacobs had been legally adopted by two Indians as a baby. His biological parents were of black and jewish descent. He had been raised by his parents as a Mohawk, understood the language, and participated fully in the community’s cultural and traditional practices. When he turned 21, the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake revoked his band membership. He was reinstated as a Registered Indian in 1988, but the Band Council refused to add him to their membership list. Additionally, his wife, who was a Mohawk from Kahnawake, was also removed from the Band’s membership list as a result of her marriage to a non-Mohawk.

At Tribunal, the Band Council asserted its right to self-determination and control over its own membership. Evidence indicated that the band council had instituted a moratorium on May 22, 1981 that restricted benefit entitlement for individuals who were in “mixed marriages” or adopted non-Indians. This included band membership, residency, land allotment, housing, welfare, education, voting rights, burial, medicine and tax privileges.

The Tribunal ruled that Mr. and Mrs. Jacobs were not a threat to the Mohawk culture and community and that the band council, by virtue of entering into funding agreements with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development intended to provide services to all residents of the reserve (not specifically band members) had discriminated against Mr. Jacobs and his family on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin and family status.

The Tribunal also noted that the question of voting rights could not be ruled on by the Tribunal, because of the Indian Act exemption afforded by Section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The Commission's program strikes an important balance. The program recognizes the historic disadvantages suffered by Aboriginal persons, the importance of redressing past wrongs and of preserving the cultural heritage and autonomy of our First Nations people. The program does not, however, allow First Nations persons to discriminate against one another on the basis of their membership in a First Nation, band or tribe. Julie C. Lloyd

Jean Bignell-Malcolm is a Cree woman, who married a member of the Ebb and Flow First Nation in 1984 and became a member of that largely Ojibway band in 1984. Over the next 20 years, she worked at the Ebb and Flow school, and earned a Bachelor of Education degree, with a 5th year certificate in education and administration. She taught at the school, and eventually accepted the Director of Education position with the Band’s Tribal Council.

In May 2003, the Band Council advertised a Director of Education position with the local school. Ms. Bignell-Malcolm met the qualifications, applied for the job, was interviewed, and offered the position. She resigned her position with the Tribal Council, although a formal offer and acceptance of her new position had not been finalized. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Bignell-Malcolm was made aware of rumours that the Band Council intended to offer her a low salary to discourage her from accepting the position.

The low offer materialized. The complainant accepted it out of financial necessity. She notified the Band Council in writing of her decision, but later that night the Chief called her at home and rescinded the offer. The position was temporarily filled by an underqualified candidate and then permanently filled by a candidate with less experience and fewer qualifications than Ms. Bignell-Malcolm. Both of these individuals were Ojibway.

Testimony before the Tribunal indicated that the community was aware that Ms. Bignell-Malcolm had been offered the position and began to complain to Council almost immediately. A petition, signed by community elders, was presented to Council noting that Ms. Bignell-Malcolm was not fluent in Saulteaux and that she was “not one of our people”. A Saulteaux language requirement had not been included in any of the employment criteria, including the advertisement or the interview.

The Band Council attempted to defend the decision to rescind her offer of employment by claiming that they had overlooked the Saulteaux language requirement in their hiring process. They also asserted their decision to give preference to another candidate was based on the CHRC’s Aboriginal Employment Preference Program. The Tribunal rejected both of these arguments and found that Ms. Bignell-Malcolm had been discriminated against on the basis of race and ethnic or national origin. Damages were awarded in 2008.