Assembly of First Nations Granted Interested Person Status in Discrimination Case

OUTCOME: Allowed

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Tribunal canadien des droits de la personne Citation: 2024 CHRT 105 Date: September 20, 2024 File No.: HR-DP-2983-23 Between: [NAME] (On behalf of Indigenous Police Chiefs of Ontario) [RESPONDENT] - and - Canadian Human Rights Commission Commission - and - [RESPONDENT] Respondent - and – [NAME] of Police Association - and- [NAME] Member: [NAME] of Contents TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u I. OVERVIEW PAGEREF _Toc177650466 \h 1 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003100370037003600350030003400360036000000 II.

DECISION PAGEREF _Toc177650467 \h 1 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003100370037003600350030003400360037000000 III. ISSUES PAGEREF _Toc177650468 \h 1 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003100370037003600350030003400360038000000 IV. ANALYSIS PAGEREF _Toc177650469 \h 1 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003100370037003600350030003400360039000000 A. [NAME] is recognized as an [NAME] _Toc177650470 \h 1 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003100370037003600350030003400370030000000 B. Terms limiting the extent of [NAME]’s participation PAGEREF _Toc177650471 \h 3 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003100370037003600350030003400370031000000 V.

ORDER PAGEREF _Toc177650472 \h 4 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003100370037003600350030003400370032000000 I. OVERVIEW [ 1 ] This is a ruling on a motion for [NAME] status. [ 2 ] The [RESPONDENT], [NAME], filed a complaint on behalf of Indigenous Police Chiefs of Ontario ([NAME]), alleging that the Respondent, [RESPONDENT] ([RESPONDENT]), discriminates in the application of its [NAME] ([NAME]). The Canadian Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) referred the complaint to the Tribunal for inquiry. [ 3 ] The [NAME] ([NAME]), a national organization representing [NAME] throughout [RESPONDENT] and their respective members, has asked the Tribunal to be recognized as an [NAME] in the inquiry into the complaint.

II.

DECISION [ 4 ] [NAME] is recognized as an [NAME], with limits on the extent of its participation.

III. ISSUES [ 5 ] The issues are the following: [NAME] be recognized as an [NAME]? If yes, what is the extent of its participation in the inquiry? IV. ANALYSIS A. [NAME] is recognized as an [NAME] [ 6 ] Rule 27 of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Rules of Procedure, 2021 , SOR/2021-137, (the “Rules”) sets out the procedure that a person seeking to be recognized as an [NAME] must follow. Rule 27(2) states that the notice of motion must specify the assistance the person wishes to provide to the inquiry and the extent to which the person wishes to participate in the inquiry. If the Tribunal grants the motion, it must specify the extent to which the [NAME] is permitted to participate (Rule 27(3)). [ 7 ] [NAME] consents to [NAME]’s request for [NAME] status with the same participatory rights as those that I previously granted to the [NAME] of Police Association ([NAME]) in [NAME] v. [RESPONDENT] , 2024 CHRT 14 [ [NAME] ]. [NAME] understands that [NAME] is committed to working cooperatively with [NAME] to identify the issues affecting both organizations, to discuss the particular issues that [NAME] will want to make submissions on, and to ensure that [NAME] does not introduce new issues that risk prolonging the proceedings. [ 8 ] The Commission also consents to [NAME]’s request. The Commission submits that [NAME] will bring a different perspective to the legal positions at issue, without unduly hindering the informal and expeditious conduct of the proceeding. [ 9 ] [RESPONDENT] does not oppose [NAME]’s limited participation in the case, though it did make some observations that I address in my analysis below. [ 10 ] The Tribunal considers the following criteria in determining whether to grant an [NAME] request (see [NAME] v. [NAME] , 2021 CHRT 30 at paras 8-13; [NAME] at paras 8-9):

1. The prospective [NAME]’s expertise will be of assistance to the Tribunal;

2. Its involvement will add to the legal positions of the parties; and 3. The proceeding may have an impact on the requesting party’s interests. [ 11 ] The analysis must not be performed strictly and automatically; rather, it should be approached on a case-by-case basis by applying a flexible and holistic perspective. [ 12 ] I find that the three criteria are met in this case. [ 13 ] [NAME] can assist the Tribunal through its insight on what [NAME] referred to in its submissions as “[RESPONDENT]’s longstanding patterns of discriminatory implementation of the [NAME].” [NAME] alleges that [RESPONDENT]’s application of the [NAME] has resulted in chronic and systemic underfunding for [NAME] police services. [NAME] can provide insight on how the alleged underfunding has impacted the wellbeing of [NAME]. [ 14 ] [RESPONDENT] recently made a motion about the scope of the complaint, arguing that the Commission had not referred the underfunding issue to the Tribunal for inquiry. In the present context, [RESPONDENT] claims that if its submissions on that motion were upheld, [NAME]’s participation would no longer be of much assistance. However, I have since ruled on that motion and held that the complaint encompasses broader allegations of underfunding, as [NAME] had claimed (see [NAME] v. [RESPONDENT] , 2024 CHRT 104). Consequently, [NAME]’s participation may still be helpful. [ 15 ] [NAME] has a mandate to advocate and promote the unique nation-to-nation relationship between the [NAME] and diverse [NAME]. In this capacity, [NAME] may also provide helpful legal submissions on the interaction between [NAME]’ right to self-determination and the right to exercise jurisdiction over policing. [ 16 ] It is also worth noting that in the context of recent injunction proceedings between [NAME] and [RESPONDENT] regarding matters at issue in this case, the Federal Court granted intervenor status to [NAME] ( Indigenous Police Chiefs of Ontario v. [RESPONDENT] ([NAME]) , 2023 FC 916 at paras 38-41). [ADDRESS] observed that [NAME] has a long history of intervening in judicial proceedings, providing courts with insight on legal questions involving [NAME]. [ 17 ] Finally, with respect to the third criterion, this proceeding could unquestionably have an impact on [NAME]’s members who are served by Indigenous police services in Ontario and even elsewhere in [RESPONDENT]. [ 18 ] Accordingly, [NAME] is recognized as an [NAME] in this case. B. Terms limiting the extent of [NAME]’s participation [ 19 ] The parties concur that [NAME]’s participation should be subject to the same terms as those assigned to the [NAME]. [ 20 ] I agree. [NAME]’s role will be restricted to a limited right to cross-examine witnesses with questioning that should not overlap with that of the parties. The questioning will be for a reasonably limited duration as determined by the Tribunal once the hearing begins. [NAME] will also be permitted to present final oral and written submissions.

V.

ORDER [ 21 ] I order that [NAME] have limited [NAME] status in this case on the following terms: [NAME] may cross-examine the parties’ witnesses provided the questioning does not duplicate or overlap with the parties’ questions and for a reasonably limited duration as determined by the Tribunal once the hearing begins; and [NAME] may present oral and written final submissions. Signed by [NAME] Tribunal Member Ottawa, Ontario September 20, 2024 Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Parties of Record File No. : HR-DP-2983-23 Style of Cause: [NAME] (On behalf of Indigenous Police Chiefs of Ontario) v. [RESPONDENT] of the Tribunal Dated: September 20, 2024 Motion dealt with in writing without appearance of parties Written representations by: [NAME] , for the [RESPONDENT] [NAME] and [RESPONDENT] , for the Respondent [RESPONDENT] and [RESPONDENT], for the Commission [NAME], for the [NAME] – [NAME]