Complaint of Discrimination in Housing Allocation Dismissed

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Tribunal canadien des droits de la personne Citation: 2026 CHRT 32 Date: March 30, 2026 File No. : HR-DP-2976-23 Between: [NAME_2] Complainant - and - Canadian Human Rights Commission Commission - and - [NAME_5] Respondent Decision Member: [NAME_7] \o "1-3" \h \z \u I. OVERVIEW PAGEREF _Toc225777945 \h 1 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320035003700370037003900340035000000 II.

DECISION PAGEREF _Toc225777946 \h 2 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320035003700370037003900340036000000 III. ISSUES PAGEREF _Toc225777947 \h 2 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320035003700370037003900340037000000 IV. SCOPE OF THE COMPLAINT REFERRED TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR INQUIRY PAGEREF _Toc225777948 \h 2 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320035003700370037003900340038000000 V. CREDIBILITY PAGEREF _Toc225777949 \h 3 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320035003700370037003900340039000000 VI. FINDINGS OF FACT PAGEREF _Toc225777950 \h 6 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320035003700370037003900350030000000 A. Contextual Evidence PAGEREF _Toc225777951 \h 6 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320035003700370037003900350031000000 B. Housing Allocations PAGEREF _Toc225777952 \h 8 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320035003700370037003900350032000000 C. Repairs and Renovations PAGEREF _Toc225777953 \h 14 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320035003700370037003900350033000000 VII. LEGAL FRAMEWORK PAGEREF _Toc225777954 \h 21 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320035003700370037003900350034000000 VIII. ANALYSIS PAGEREF _Toc225777955 \h 23 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320035003700370037003900350035000000 (i) [NAME_4] have one or more characteristics protected from discrimination under section 3 of the CHRA? PAGEREF _Toc225777956 \h 24 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320035003700370037003900350036000000 (ii) [NAME_5] deny [NAME_4] a service customarily available to the general public (or access to such service), or did it deny her a residential accommodation, or treat her in an adverse differential manner in the provision of such a service or residential accommodation? PAGEREF _Toc225777957 \h 24 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320035003700370037003900350037000000 (iii) Was the Complainant’s personal characteristic(s) a factor in the adverse treatment or denial of a service or residential accommodation? PAGEREF _Toc225777958 \h 28 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320035003700370037003900350038000000 IX.

CONCLUSION PAGEREF _Toc225777959 \h 31 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320035003700370037003900350039000000 I. OVERVIEW [ 1 ] [NAME_2] (the Complainant) is a member of the Respondent [NAME_5] ([NAME_5]). [NAME_4] resides on the [NAME_8] (the [NAME_9]) in a home owned by [NAME_5]. Her complaint alleges discrimination in the receipt of a service customarily available to the general public and residential accommodation on the basis of her sex, marital status and family status, within the meaning of sections 5 and 6 of the Canadian Human Rights Act , R.S.C., 1985 c.H-6 [CHRA]. [ 2 ] Specifically, she says she has been required to live in inadequate housing and that the Respondent has denied her renovations to her current home, or reimbursement for renovations she has done on her own, and has denied her a new home. [NAME_4] says she wrote to the Respondent more than once about renovations to her current home and did not receive a reply. [NAME_4] also says [NAME_5] has received funding over the last several years to build new homes and she did not receive one, while some people received a new home for the second time. She alleges that those who are elected as Chief and Council for [NAME_5] give themselves and their relatives new homes or renovate their homes, but she never receives the same benefits herself because she is an unmarried woman with three children who comes from a small family that is not part of [NAME_5]’s leadership. She says that having her requests for renovations or a new home ignored while others get new homes or renovations has affected her self-worth and left her feeling isolated in her community. [ 3 ] If she establishes that discrimination occurred, [NAME_4] wants the Tribunal to order [NAME_5] to provide her with a new home, to reimburse her for renovations to her current home, and to pay her damages for pain and suffering and for the willful and reckless nature of the alleged discrimination. She also wants the Tribunal to order [NAME_5] to establish an ethics committee for the Housing department that is separate from the Chief and Council so there is fair and equitable allocation of housing in the community. [ 4 ] [NAME_5] denies that it has discriminated against [NAME_4] and asks the Tribunal to dismiss her complaint. [NAME_5] says it has limited resources and that it has a clear, non-discriminatory [NAME_10] that guides its decisions to allocate housing and repairs to its members. [NAME_5] also says it invested nearly $30,000 on repairs, restorations and improvements to [NAME_4]’ house between 2017 and 2019 and that it has always responded to her service requests related to her house. Since 2020, however, [NAME_5] says [NAME_4] has refused to allow a housing inspector into her home and so it is not able to assess what, if any, further repairs are required. [NAME_4] denies that she has prevented an inspection of her home.

II.

DECISION [ 5 ] I am dismissing [NAME_4]’ complaint against [NAME_5] because she has not established that she was discriminated against in relation to the provision of a service customarily available to the general public or residential accommodation on the basis of her sex or her family status or marital status.

III. ISSUES [ 6 ] In this decision I determine if [NAME_5] discriminated against [NAME_4] on the basis of her sex and/or family or marital status: (a) in relation to the provision of a service within the meaning of section 5 of the CHRA by refusing to reply to her requests for renovations and repairs to her existing home or by refusing to reimburse her for renovations she did herself; and/or, (b) in the provision of residential accommodation within the meaning of section 6 of the CHRA by not providing her with new housing.

IV. SCOPE OF THE COMPLAINT REFERRED TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR INQUIRY [ 7 ] [NAME_4] filed her human rights complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (Commission) in February of 2020. The Commission referred the complaint to the Tribunal for an inquiry in November of 2023. In doing so the Commission decided not to refer allegations of discrimination that occurred before 2018, pursuant to its authority under section 41(1)(e) of the CHRA. The Commission stated that it was asking the Tribunal to inquire into [NAME_4]’ allegations from 2018 and 2019. The Tribunal receives its jurisdiction to inquire into a complaint from the Commission’s decision to refer. [ 8 ] Much of [NAME_4]’ evidence related to events that occurred prior to 2018. This evidence was admitted to provide contextual information about the relationship between the parties and to establish [NAME_4]’ position that she had applied to [NAME_5] for new housing and renovations to her home in the past. However, any findings of discrimination will relate only to events starting in 2018.

V. CREDIBILITY [ 9 ] The job of the Tribunal is to consider and weigh the evidence presented at hearing and to make findings of fact within the legal framework established by the CHRA. [ 10 ] The Tribunal heard from three witnesses at the hearing. [NAME_4] testified on her own behalf about her experiences in seeking housing and assistance with repairs from [NAME_5] over the last several years. [NAME_5] called two witnesses, [NAME_11] and [NAME_13]. [NAME_15] was an elected [NAME_16] from 2014 to 2022 and held the Housing Portfolio as a Councillor from 2016 to 2022. At the time of the hearing, [NAME_15] was the Interim Housing Manager for [NAME_5]. [NAME_13] has been the Chief of [NAME_5] since 2013, having most recently been elected in 2022. Prior to becoming Chief he was a [NAME_16] from 2006 to 2010. Both parties introduced documentary evidence as well. Following the hearing, the parties made written and oral closing submissions. [ 11 ] In cases where the majority of the evidence presented comes from witness testimony, the Tribunal may have to determine who to believe. In determining the weight to be given to testimonial evidence, the Tribunal must assess the witnesses’ credibility and reliability. Credibility refers to the veracity of witness testimony, while reliability is concerned with the accuracy of witness testimony as assessed based on their ability to observe, recall, and recount the events in issue ( R v HC , 2009 ONCA 56 at para 41). A witness who is found to be unreliable cannot give credible evidence, although a credible witness, who is endeavouring to tell the truth, may still inadvertently give unreliable evidence ( R v Morrissey , (1995) 22 OR (3d) 514 at 526, 1995 CanLII 3498 (ON CA)). [ 12 ] The Respondent argues that its witnesses were credible while [NAME_4] was not. It says that [NAME_17]’ testimony was inherently believable, and was consistent with the other “independent, non-party, disinterested witness”, [NAME_15], as well as with the documentary evidence. The Respondent says [NAME_15] is independent because she is not currently a member of Council. It describes her evidence as being clear, logical and coherent, and says it was unshaken and uncontested in cross-examination. [ 13 ] The Respondent submits that the Tribunal should assess the credibility of the witnesses based on the criteria set out at paragraph 186 of [NAME_18] v [NAME_19] , 2010 BCSC 1398 (aff’d 2012 BCCA 296), including: (a) The capacity and opportunity of the witness to observe the events at issue; (b) His or her ability to remember those events; (c) The ability of the witness to resist being influenced by his or her interest in recalling those events; (d) The internal and external consistency of the witness’s evidence; (e) Whether the witness’s evidence harmonizes with or is contradicted by other evidence, particularly independent or undisputed evidence; (f) Whether his or her evidence seems unreasonable, improbable or unlikely, bearing in mind the probabilities affecting the case; and (g) The witness’s demeanor, meaning the way he or she presents while testifying. [ 14 ] The Respondent says that [NAME_4]’ evidence is not credible or believable because: (a) Her memory and recollection of events was not consistent or coherent; (b) She was often argumentative in her responses to questions during the hearing; (c) Her evidence relating to her status and position within [NAME_5] was not credible, as it is clear that her family was relatively privileged in [NAME_5]. It says she is not disadvantaged because her grandfather was the last hereditary Chief, her brother had been a Chief and member of Council, her mother had been a member of Council, while her cousin [NAME_13] is the current Chief and [NAME_15], who is the Interim Housing Manager and previously a member of Council, is also her cousin. [ 15 ] I do not agree with the Respondent that [NAME_4] was not a credible witness. [NAME_4] had good recollection of the events she was testifying about, and her recollection was consistent with her allegations as set out in her complaint form and her Statement of Particulars. She had documentary evidence to support many of her allegations about asking for housing and seeking assistance from both the federal government and [NAME_5]’s Chief and Council to improve the condition of her home. Questions that were put to her on cross-examination were often based on a premise she was not aware of or did not agree with, which is often the case with cross-examination questions. This can be confusing for witnesses, including self-represented litigants not familiar with adversarial proceedings. I am not suggesting there was anything improper about the way the cross-examination occurred. The questions were all appropriate and properly asked and were put to [NAME_4] in a respectful manner that allowed her time to answer. Any argumentativeness came from her disagreement with the Respondent’s position, which is common in an adversarial setting. [ 16 ] With regard to the Respondent’s submission that [NAME_4]’ evidence relating to her status and position in [NAME_5] was not credible, as it is clear that her family was relatively privileged within [NAME_5], I do not agree. The evidence before the Tribunal was that most people in [NAME_5] are related, as it is a small [NAME_20]. [NAME_4] did not agree with the Chief’s characterization of their relationship as being like siblings because their parents were siblings. Simply because her own brother had once been the Chief and her mother may have been a member of the [NAME_16] in the 1970s does not mean that [NAME_4]’ subjective experience of feeling isolated and disrespected by [NAME_5] was not legitimate. Her position was that her clan of the [NAME_4] is small, consisting of her and her brother and children, whereas other families are much larger and get together to vote in their own family members. No evidence was provided to disprove this or to convince me that her subjective experience was not reasonable. [ 17 ] I found all of the witnesses who testified before the Tribunal to be credible. I did not doubt that any witness was endeavouring to tell the truth in their testimony. [ 18 ] While I do not agree that [NAME_15] is independent from the Respondent, given both her position as a [NAME_16] until 2022 and her current role as the Interim Housing Manager, I have no reason to disbelieve her evidence of events she participated in or witnessed. The evidence of the parties was largely consistent. However, the Tribunal did hear contradictory evidence about certain matters, including whether [NAME_4] had refused to allow a housing inspector into her home and about [NAME_4] not wanting to work with certain contractors. The Respondent’s evidence of these events relies on hearsay (and sometimes double hearsay), relating to information that [NAME_15] says she was told by the former Housing Manager, [NAME_4]. This included, sometimes, information that [NAME_4] was passing on from others. Sadly, [NAME_4] passed away in 2022 and so the Tribunal was not able to hear from him directly. [ 19 ] Where I am required to determine whether I prefer the evidence of one witness over another, when faced with contradictory evidence on a relevant point, I will consider the reliability of the evidence given by each witness and decide the weight to be given to it.

VI. FINDINGS OF FACT [ 20 ] The Respondent is a [NAME_21] in accordance with Treaty No.6 executed in 1877. [NAME_5] has approximately 2100 members. [NAME_5] has assumed control of its membership and adopted a custom electoral system pursuant to section 10 of the Indian Act , R.S.C. 1985, c.I-5. All decisions by [NAME_5] are made by its governing body comprising the Chief and Council. This includes allocating and managing housing on the [NAME_9], all of which is owned by [NAME_5]. A. Contextual Evidence [ 21 ] [NAME_4] testified that she first applied for a house from [NAME_5] when she was pregnant with her first child in 1987. She was living with her parents at the time, and she eventually moved into the house next door to her parents, which was vacant and was loaned to her by the person to whom the home was allocated by [NAME_5]. She then moved to Edmonton to go back to school and, in 1994 she had her second child and applied for a house from [NAME_5] again. She testified that she paid a $400 deposit to [NAME_5] to apply for a house at that time, but she did not receive one and she did not get her deposit back. [NAME_4] introduced a handwritten letter addressed to Chief and Council dated May 3, 1994, requesting housing so she could raise her children in the community she grew up in. The letter says she would be giving the financial clerk a money order for $450 as a downpayment for the deposit of $1,000. The Respondent’s evidence was that it has no record of an application or deposit from [NAME_4]. [ 22 ] As she did not receive a new home at that time, and she was working on the [NAME_9], [NAME_4] says she moved into an abandoned home that another member of [NAME_5] loaned her, and she fixed it up to make it liveable for her and her two children. [ 23 ] In 1997 [NAME_4]’ parents passed away within five weeks of one other and she moved into their house on the [NAME_9] and has been living there since then. She says the house was built in 1967 and she had lived there as a child. She says there has always been a problem with flooding in the basement of that house in the spring and summer, which continues to the present. As a result of the flooding, she says there was a lot of black mold when she moved in, which she cleaned up as best she could to make it a liveable home for herself and her children. She testified that she got rid of the mold herself sometime within her first five years of moving in in 1997, although she says her lungs bother her now and she believes this is due to inhaling the black mold. [ 24 ] [NAME_4]’ son was born in 1998, so then she was a single mother to three children and was working full-time. She says that, over the years she has asked [NAME_5] to do renovations to the house and she has applied for a new house, but was never chosen to receive one. She said as a single mother who was working full-time, she just did what she could to survive and was grateful to have a home. [ 25 ] [NAME_4] introduced a letter dated August 17, 2011 addressed to the Chief at the time saying she was applying for a new house. In the letter, she described the renovations required to the house she was living in, including that she believed there may be asbestos in the insulation, structural damage caused by a leaking roof, and cracks in the basement floor that floods when it rains. [ 26 ] In or around May of 2014, [NAME_4] was approved for something called the [NAME_23], which was apparently funding from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) to [NAME_5] to renovate homes. She was told she had to move out of her house so the work could happen. She provided a letter from the Housing Manager at the time, [NAME_4], dated May 28, 2014, advising her that she must find temporary accommodations while the work is being done to her unit. She testified that, as such, she rented accommodation in Edmonton for about a year, but no work was being done and her house was getting broken into, so she moved back home even though the renovation work was never done. [ 27 ] In around 2015 or 2016, after new leadership was elected, [NAME_4] said she had a conversation with [NAME_11], who was a [NAME_16] at the time, and told her she had been approved for the [NAME_23], but the work was not done. [NAME_4] said [NAME_15] told her [NAME_5] did not end up getting the money for this program at the time because the previous leadership had not done the proper reporting. When being cross-examined by [NAME_4], [NAME_15] agreed that, when the Chief first assigned her the Housing portfolio for [NAME_5] in 2016, after being elected as a Councillor in 2014, the [NAME_23] was suspended by CMHC because [NAME_5] had not done the required reporting. She said they were able to get the [NAME_23] reinstated within about three months. When asked by [NAME_4] why her house was not renovated under the [NAME_23] once the funding was reinstated, since she had been previously approved for it, [NAME_15] said she spoke to the then-Housing Manager [NAME_4] about [NAME_4]’ house and learned that there was work being done on it, including that the windows were being replaced. B. Housing Allocations [ 28 ] [NAME_4] testified that, in 2018 the [NAME_16] was approved for funding to build around 31 new housing units on the [NAME_9]. She believed that, because she had applied for a new home years before, she did not need to submit a new application in order to be allocated one of these 31 housing units, as she assumed her application was still on file. [ 29 ] [NAME_4] also testified that she did not make a new housing application because it was her belief that houses were allocated based on verbal requests and promises made by the Chief and Council, not based on any policy or through applications. [NAME_4]’ belief, which was unsupported by evidence, is that, whenever there is an election in [NAME_5], the newly elected Chief and Council give houses to whoever they want in order to fulfill election promises. [ 30 ] [NAME_4] submitted her human rights complaint to the Commission in February of 2020. She testified that not even being considered for one of the 31 new homes motivated her to file her complaint. She does not think any of the people who were allocated these 31 housing units applied for them either, but that they were just given out based on favouritism or to fulfill promises made by the Chief and Council. She also believes some of the people who received these houses were receiving a new house for the second time. The Respondent does not dispute that some people have received more than one new house, for various non-discriminatory reasons. For example, as [NAME_17] testified, if their house burns down and they are homeless, or their family situation changes because they have children, or their house becomes uninhabitable. [NAME_4] admitted her own daughter, who is a single mother, had been allocated two new houses in recent years to accommodate her growing family. [ 31 ] On July 17, 2024, [NAME_4] sent a letter to the Chief and Council applying for one of the approximately 74 new housing units being set up on the [NAME_9]. She did not receive a reply and she did not receive one of these homes. However, [NAME_15] testified that she was directed to add [NAME_4]’ name to the housing wait list in 2024. [ 32 ] [NAME_15] and [NAME_17] testified that new housing and repairs to existing housing are both allocated in accordance with [NAME_5]’s Housing Authority Policy Manual (the [NAME_10]), which was adopted by [NAME_5]’s leadership in 2009. The [NAME_10] was introduced as evidence at the hearing. [ 33 ] The [NAME_10] states that all applicants for housing must complete an application form or provide a written letter which indicates where the applicant is currently living and for how long, their marital status and the number of dependants living with them, and the reasons why they deserve a new house. The Policy says applicants must also complete a mandatory home maintenance seminar with a certificate of completion offered by the Housing department, for a fee. [ 34 ] The [NAME_10] also requires applicants to pay a $1,000 application fee before the application can be processed, although the amount can be reduced if there are reasonable grounds for doing so. The fee is non-refundable upon receipt of a unit. [ 35 ] [NAME_17] testified that people will sometimes ask the Chief or Council members for a new house, and they will refer them to the Housing department to complete an application form. [NAME_15] said people usually call the Housing department to ask how they can apply for a house and they are sent an application form to complete and return, or they can come to the Housing office to complete the form. [ 36 ] I note that the [NAME_10] states that there is to be a Housing Authority Committee, headed by a chairperson along with appointed members to direct and oversee all Housing Authority business. The Housing Authority Committee, which is to be made up of community members, including Elders, is supposed to be established to provide general direction to the Housing department. The Policy sets out the terms of reference for the Committee, and states that the Committee is to review, discuss and select community applications or requests for housing, renovations, maintenance or residency allocations and ensure there is a follow up and response to all requests. The Committee is supposed to screen and select applicants for new housing and renovation allocations, and provide its recommendations to Chief and Council for approval. The Committee is also to be accessible and available to all [NAME_16] Members to hear and receive housing-related issues and concerns. The Policy states that there are to be between five and nine members of the Committee, including the Housing portfolio holder appointed by the Chief, two Elders appointed by the portfolio holder, the Housing Manager, a technical advisory member (tradesperson) and up to four additional [NAME_16] members. [ 37 ] [NAME_5] appears not to follow the [NAME_10] strictly, as it does not have a Housing Committee that makes recommendations to Chief and Council. Rather, as [NAME_15] and [NAME_17] testified, the Chief and Council, as the Housing Authority, receive a list of those who have applied for housing and they approve applications based on objective criteria set out in the [NAME_10], considering the urgency of an applicant’s needs and the availability of alternative solutions to resolve such needs. The Housing Authority makes its allocation decisions at a meeting called specifically for this purpose and the Housing Manager is there to present the applications and can answer questions about the applications and the current housing situation in [NAME_5]. [ 38 ] When asked about why there was no committee appointed to consider housing allocation for [NAME_5], [NAME_17] testified that it was most appropriate for the Chief and Council to make the difficult decisions about who should receive the limited housing available in [NAME_5] because they are accountable to [NAME_5]’s membership. He also referred to the limited amount of money available for housing in [NAME_5] generally as a reason not to have a committee with members who would likely have to be paid out of the limited Housing budget. The Chief and Council as the Housing Authority rely on the already paid and knowledgeable staff of the Housing department instead of a separate committee. [ 39 ] The [NAME_10] sets out the criteria the Housing Authority is to use to determine, on a fair and objective basis, who will be allocated housing, based on a “most needed basis” with priority given to: A) a family ([NAME_16] Member) which is presently homeless (boarding with another family, living in a loaned unit (on-[NAME_9]) or paying rent off the [NAME_9]); B) homeless families with two or more children; C) social services clients and/or low-income families and/or those with special needs (disability/pension). This group will be given 55% of all new home allocations; D) single-parent families or families who have had numerous applications rejected; E) [NAME_16] members who have been living on the [NAME_9] for more than three consecutive years; F) [NAME_16] members living in over-crowded conditions; G) [NAME_16] members living in a unit which may be condemned, due to over-crowding, negligence, old age; H) off-[NAME_9] [NAME_16] members who have resided off-[NAME_9] due to a housing shortage on the [NAME_9]. [ 40 ] The Respondent provided copies of housing applications completed by many members of [NAME_5] as far back as 2014, as well as housing lists current to the date of the hearing showing how many people were waiting for a new house. The Respondent was able to show how many people applied for housing each year and how many houses were allocated each year. Generally, between 2015 and 2024, the number of new houses allocated each year was relatively small, between zero and eight. However, in 2018, [NAME_5] allocated 33 homes and, in 2024-2025, it allocated 72 homes. This left 85 applications for new housing on the Respondent’s wait list as of the date of the Respondent’s closing submissions, including [NAME_4]. [ 41 ] When cross-examined by the Respondent’s counsel, [NAME_4] testified that she became aware of [NAME_5]’s [NAME_10] when the Respondent disclosed it as part of the human rights complaint process. When asked why she did not submit a housing application form like other members of [NAME_5] had, she testified that no one had asked her to or sent her an application. When asked if she had sent [NAME_4] an application form to complete, [NAME_15] said she had not, that she was simply told to add her name to the housing wait list, which she has done. As she is now over 60, [NAME_4] is considered an Elder in [NAME_5] and so appears on the list of Elders waiting for housing, although the list indicates that [NAME_4]’ application is incomplete. [ 42 ] [NAME_17] described the housing situation in [NAME_5] as being quite dire, a situation shared with other [NAME_22] across the country. He said [NAME_5]’s biggest issue with housing is the lack of resources, as they are unable to house all of their members on the [NAME_9]. [NAME_17] testified that [NAME_5] receives just under $300,000 per year for its Housing department from the federal government. [NAME_5] owns all of the houses on the [NAME_9] and is responsible for their repair and upkeep, but it does not charge any rent to members who live in its homes. He testified that [NAME_5] applies for other sources of funding to provide housing for its members and some of the money from [NAME_5]’s companies goes towards building more housing. [ 43 ] [NAME_17] testified that they are down about 200 houses on the [NAME_9] at any one time, as the demand is always much higher than the supply and resources. He testified that a former Housing Manager had done an inventory of all houses on the [NAME_9] which indicated that 50% of the homes need major renovations, with some needing to be demolished and rebuilt, while another 25% need some renovations, and only 25% of the homes are in good condition. [ 44 ] [NAME_17] testified that, in addition to a lack of houses and resources, the major issues facing [NAME_5] in terms of housing are homelessness and overcrowding, with multiple generations or extended family residing together in the same household. Many members of [NAME_5] are required to reside off-[NAME_9] due to the lack of housing. [NAME_4] testified that she herself had to rent off-[NAME_9] for many years for this reason. [ 45 ] [NAME_17] testified that [NAME_5] had recently built 72 homes, which put a dent in the housing wait list, but this has also resulted in more people wanting to move back to [NAME_5], and so the demand for housing has also gone up. He stated that [NAME_5]’s population is increasing by about five percent per year and, if they keep building houses and more people move back to the [NAME_9], they will need to build a new school as well. [ 46 ] With regard to [NAME_4] not receiving a new house, [NAME_17] testified that she did not receive a house in the last allocation of 72 houses because she already has a house that is habitable and not crowded and [NAME_5] has been putting resources into repairing her home to keep it liveable. It is not condemned or unfit like other houses on the [NAME_9]. Some peoples’ homes had burned down or were otherwise uninhabitable which made them homeless and thus increased their need for a new home. The Tribunal heard evidence that 23 homes had burned down in [NAME_5] in the past 20 years. The Chief also explained how certain people who had received new homes had been living in houses where sewage was seeping in and had become toxic or, due to humidity, black mold had developed and was not healthy, or the house was ready to collapse. Others who received homes were single parents who were homeless. The Tribunal also heard that there are people on the housing wait list who are currently living in RVs or trailers or cabins with no utilities, have no home on the [NAME_9], are disabled, are living in condemned houses, have nowhere for their children to visit them, and are homeless in the city. [ 47 ] [NAME_17] stated that it is up to the Chief and Council acting as the Housing Authority to make the difficult decisions required when allocating the limited housing available when so many people are in need and, in doing so, they apply the non-discriminatory criteria set out in the [NAME_10]. The personal circumstances of each applicant are considered when deciding about whether to allocate them a home. These include applicants who are married, single or widowed, with or without dependants. [NAME_17] testified that the Housing Authority does not exclude single mothers or unmarried women from receiving new houses. He noted that [NAME_4]’ daughter, who is a single mother, has received two new houses over the past few years, in accordance with the needs of her family. [ 48 ] The Respondent disputes [NAME_4]’ belief that housing allocation is not done in accordance with the [NAME_10] and that the Chief and Council just give houses to their relatives whenever they are elected. [NAME_17] referred to the Conflict of Interest section of [NAME_5]’s Customary Election Regulations, which says that Chief and Council must not show favouritism or prejudice or bias in any decisions they make and must not use their office or powers to provide extraordinary benefits for themselves or their immediate families. His evidence was that the Chief and Council members will recuse themselves when housing allocation decisions are being made about their own family members. C. Repairs and Renovations [ 49 ] In January of 2019, [NAME_4] appealed to the federal government for assistance with her housing concerns. She contacted [NAME_24], a Housing Officer with Indigenous Services Canada’s (ISC) Community Infrastructure department by telephone to ask for help. [NAME_26] followed up with an email, admitted as evidence at the hearing, to [NAME_5]’s then-Housing Manager [NAME_4] and the Assistant Housing Manager, [NAME_27], as well as [NAME_11] as the Councillor responsible for the Housing portfolio, advising that [NAME_4] had raised two issues with her. First, [NAME_4] said she had submitted several applications for home renovations over the past 30 years with little work being done to her home. Second, [NAME_4] said she had poor water quality in her home, with black water coming out of the cold-water tap. [NAME_26] said she had told [NAME_4] to call the [NAME_28] to conduct an assessment on the water quality. [NAME_26] also asked the recipients of her email to follow up with [NAME_4] about these concerns, but [NAME_4] says she did not hear from them. [ 50 ] Also in January of 2019, [NAME_4] wrote to [NAME_29], the Regional Director General of ISC, appealing for assistance in dealing with [NAME_5]’s Housing Authority. [NAME_4] said [NAME_26] had advised her to write to him. She advised [NAME_29] of the same issues she had told [NAME_26] about, adding that, while some of the work required to be done on her house was cosmetic, such as putting up drywall and painting, which she could probably do herself, there were other problems that required professionals to do the work. For example, she said her basement floods every spring and summer with heavy rain and she had to buy water for cooking and drinking and could not own a washing machine because there was so much iron in her well water. [ 51 ] On February 11, 2019, [NAME_29] responded to [NAME_4] to advise that the provision and management of on-[NAME_9] housing is the responsibility of the [NAME_20]. He said the Government of Canada provides support in the form of modest annual capital funding allocations for on-[NAME_9] housing that can be put toward new constructions, housing renovations and other housing related activities. He stated that ISC was aware that many [NAME_22] are struggling to meet the demands placed on their housing programs and that [NAME_22] must prioritize requests to meet the needs of their membership. [ 52 ] With regard to her concerns relating to mold from flooding in her basement and her water quality issue, [NAME_29] referred [NAME_4] to the [NAME_28], as [NAME_26] had done. He further encouraged her to work with [NAME_5]’s Housing department, and to call [NAME_4]. He also said she could contact [NAME_26], who had referred [NAME_4] to [NAME_29]. [ 53 ] In May of 2019, [NAME_4] emailed the Executive Secretary for Chief and Council asking to be added to the agenda for the next Council meeting to address her concerns. When she advised that she wished to speak to them about housing renovations she was told by the Executive Secretary that her concerns were sent to the Housing department as requested by the Chief and Council. [NAME_4] said she never heard from the Housing department after that. [ 54 ] In November of 2019, [NAME_4] says she sent a letter to the Chief and Council, admitted as evidence at the hearing, about how she had been approved for the [NAME_23] in 2014 and had been required to leave her home on the [NAME_9] and rent an apartment in Edmonton for a year, only to move back into her home on the [NAME_9] because no work was done and her house was being broken into. She also noted that she had submitted several letters requesting new housing over the past 30 years but had not received any response from leadership. She said she had also requested renovations to her house on several occasions but no major work was ever done. She noted that she had not been considered for any of the 31 houses that were recently built. [NAME_4] requested a follow up in writing regarding these issues. She testified that she received no reply from Chief and Council to this letter and sent a follow up letter in January of 2020, to which she also received no reply. [NAME_4] testified that, after this, she stopped making requests of [NAME_5] for renovations because no one was responding to her, and she continued to do repairs and renovations herself. [ 55 ] [NAME_4] provided copies of receipts for materials and services related to work she has done on her house since 2020. This includes the drilling of a new well in October of 2021 and electrical work in May of 2023 for a basement bedroom. She asks [NAME_5] to reimburse her for these out-of-pocket expenses. She agreed that she did not get prior approval before doing the renovations after 2019 and testified that she did not know she was supposed to, as she did not become aware of the [NAME_10] until it was disclosed as part of the human rights complaint process. [ 56 ] When asked by counsel for the Respondent if she allowed [NAME_5] to inspect these repairs to ensure they were done properly she said [NAME_5] has never asked to inspect them. [ 57 ] The Respondent disagrees with [NAME_4]’ evidence that she did not hear from the Housing department after she wrote to the Executive Secretary in May of 2019 asking to be added to the agenda of the next Chief and Council meeting to discuss housing renovations. It says the evidence of [NAME_15] and [NAME_17] contradicts [NAME_4]’ evidence. In its Closing Submissions, the Respondent says: “On various occasions when the Respondent contacted the Complainant to inspect her property to assess any further work or repairs, she refused to provide consent for an inspection. In accordance with the Inspection Requirement, as recently as November 28, 2020, the Respondent’s Housing Manager, [NAME_4], further contacted the Complainant and arranged for a visit with the housing inspector to assess the condition of the residence. However, the Complainant refused to let the inspector into her house or allow them to conduct the required inspection. The Complainant by her conduct hindered the efforts of the Respondent to provide the services that she claims were and are not being provided to her.” [ 58 ] The requirement for an inspection comes from the [NAME_10], which says members who need assistance with repairs to their homes are to submit a written request to the Housing department outlining the required repairs. Upon receipt of such a request, the department conducts an inspection and sends a contractor to the house to assess the issue and estimate the costs of the required work, then arranges for a contractor to do the repairs. The [NAME_10] says that members must make their houses available for inspection and failure to do so may result in the member forfeiting their right to a renovation or repair if the Housing department cannot determine a cost for the required renovation. [NAME_15] testified that emergency repairs are dealt with less formally so they can be done quickly. For example, if someone has no heat in their home, they can call for assistance, they do not need to submit a written request. It is still up to the Housing department to determine how the repairs should proceed, however, and whether they can be done by [NAME_31] or whether a contractor should be hired to do them. [ 59 ] With respect to [NAME_4]’ house, the Respondent provided a summary of work [NAME_5] had paid for from the 1990s to February of 2019, including approximately $29,000 for various work done between March of 2017 and February of 2019, most of which [NAME_4] agreed had been done. [ 60 ] [NAME_17] and [NAME_15] gave evidence about [NAME_4] refusing to allow an inspector into her home after 2019, both of which relied on hearsay evidence from [NAME_4]. [ 61 ] [NAME_17]’ evidence about [NAME_4]’ dealings with [NAME_4] and her alleged refusal to have her home inspected was very vague, and appeared to have come from [NAME_15], because the Chief simply repeated the evidence [NAME_15] gave about this. He did not say he spoke to [NAME_4] about this himself. As such, I give [NAME_17]’ evidence on this topic no weight, as it lacks reliability and is at best double hearsay. [ 62 ] [NAME_15]’ evidence on the issue of [NAME_4] allegedly refusing to have her home inspected or allowing the [NAME_32] to work on it was also vague and relied on hearsay. I accept [NAME_15]’ evidence that she attended at [NAME_4]’ home in 2017 with [NAME_4]. [NAME_4] disagrees that [NAME_4] was there, but she does agree that [NAME_15] was there and that they discussed the [NAME_23] reporting issue and she agrees with [NAME_15]’ evidence that some of the walls had been taken down because she had ants in the walls. I find that it is more likely than not that [NAME_15], as the Councillor in charge of the Housing portfolio, would have attended at [NAME_4]’ home with the then-Housing Manager, as opposed to on her own. [ 63 ] [NAME_15]’ evidence was that she told [NAME_4] that she would have to work with [NAME_4] on hiring contractors, including an electrician, because there was some exposed wiring. [NAME_15] said [NAME_4] wanted to hire her own contractor, it is clear that ultimately she did work with [NAME_5] to have the repairs done, as [NAME_5]’s evidence shows that it paid for framing work to have walls put up in early 2018 and it paid [NAME_33] in November of 2017, and later in February of 2019, to do work at [NAME_4]’ home. As [NAME_5] paid for the work to be done, it was obviously approved by the Housing department. [ 64 ] While the Respondent tries to advance a narrative that [NAME_4] was difficult to deal with because she wanted to use her own contractors or she was otherwise uncooperative, this ultimately is not established by the evidence before the Tribunal. There was some disputed evidence about why the electrician from [NAME_33] had not returned to [NAME_4]’ home to complete work he had started, with [NAME_15]’ evidence relying on what she said [NAME_4] had told her and [NAME_4] relying on what she said the electrician had told her. Ultimately, nothing turns on this, so I need not determine whose hearsay evidence is more reliable in relation to why this electrician did not return to [NAME_4]’ home. [ 65 ] [NAME_15] was able to testify about her own interaction with [NAME_4] when she visited her home with [NAME_4] in 2017, her further evidence in relation to [NAME_4] relies on hearsay evidence. She testified that she did not follow up with [NAME_4] about her home repairs after the 2017 visit because she left it with [NAME_4] to work with [NAME_4] to ensure the work was done in a safe and satisfactory manner. [NAME_15] testified that she believed, from what she was advised by [NAME_4], that the Housing department did attempt to finish the work at [NAME_4]’ home, but it became difficult to access her unit because often when they went there her driveway gate was closed. [NAME_15] also testified: “I believe they brought an inspector there to inspect the house but she wouldn’t provide access to that housing inspector.” [ 66 ] [NAME_15]’ evidence about [NAME_4] refusing to permit an inspector into her home lacks a time frame, the name of an inspector, what work they were trying to inspect, and what efforts they made to reach her beyond encountering a closed gate. It is also second-hand from [NAME_4] who has passed away. [ 67 ] [NAME_4]’ evidence was that she did not refuse entry to anyone from [NAME_5], including an inspector. I prefer [NAME_4]’ evidence about this to the Respondent’s hearsay evidence. [NAME_4]’ desire to have work done on her house, and her letter to the Chief and Council in November of 2019 after having asked to be added to the agenda of a Council meeting in May of 2019 to discuss this topic, I do not believe that she then prevented [NAME_5] from coming into her home in relation to renovations that she wanted done. [ 68 ] [NAME_4] could not give evidence about [NAME_4] refusing to allow an inspector into her home, the Respondent could have called other former Housing Managers or inspectors who were allegedly refused entry, and it did not do so. [NAME_15] testified that there were several interim Housing Managers between [NAME_4] and herself and none of them was called to give evidence about inspections that were attempted at [NAME_4]’ home. [ 69 ] My further concern with the assertion in the Respondent’s Closing Submissions that [NAME_4] tried to arrange for a housing inspector to come to [NAME_4]’ home in November of 2020, is that [NAME_15] testified that [NAME_4] stopped being the Housing Manager in 2018 or 2019. [ 70 ] Further, the Respondent did not provide any records indicating that anyone had contacted [NAME_4] about coming to inspect her unit, either by email or by telephone. Saying that she refused an inspection because her driveway gate was closed lacks reason, since [NAME_5] obviously knows [NAME_4] has a telephone and email address. [ 71 ] In light of all of this, I give [NAME_15]’ evidence about [NAME_4] refusing an inspection of her home or refusing to work with the [NAME_32] no weight as it lacks reliability. [ 72 ] The Respondent further argues in its Closing Submissions that [NAME_4] agreed when being cross-examined that she did not permit the Respondent to inspect her unit to see if the repairs she had done herself or paid for were done properly. I disagree with the Respondent’s characterization of [NAME_4]’ testimony. The Respondent refers to a brief exchange in which counsel put to her: “And you did not permit [NAME_5] to inspect your unit to see if these repairs were done properly, correct?” and her response was “Nope”. First of all, it is not clear if her answer of “nope” was agreeing with the proposition put to her or disagreeing with it. But in any event, counsel went on to clarify by asking, “So you agree you did not permit [NAME_5] to inspect, correct?” and [NAME_4] answered, “It was never requested”. [NAME_4] did not waver in her position that she was never asked by anyone from [NAME_5] to come and inspect her home. [NAME_4] understood clearly the question that was being put to her, she answered clearly and was not shaken on cross-examination. It was put to her that [NAME_5] asked to inspect her unit several times and she denied them access and she said “No, that’s not true.” [ 73 ] I accept [NAME_4]’ evidence that she did not refuse to have her home inspected, and that no one approached her to ask to inspect it after February of 2019, which is the last time [NAME_5] paid for any work to be done at her home. [ 74 ] [NAME_4] did not comply with the [NAME_10] by having an inspection completed so [NAME_5] could determine whether the work needed to be done and hire contractors from its approved list, [NAME_17] testified that [NAME_5] would still be willing to reimburse [NAME_4] for improvements and repairs made to her house after 2019, as [NAME_5] is the owner of the house. It takes the position that an inspector must first evaluate the work to ensure it was done properly before she can be reimbursed. [ 75 ] Further, the [NAME_10] says the Housing department is to do a structural inspection every two years of all [NAME_16] units to determine the structural condition of the unit and the type of work that needs to be done and whether it will be a major or minor repair. The Tribunal did not hear evidence as to whether this occurs. [NAME_15] has been the Interim Housing Manager for some time, she did not provide evidence about the last time an inspection was attempted at [NAME_4]’ home. [NAME_4] testified that her roof still leaks and her basement still floods, which have been issues for many years, so an inspection is clearly needed to ensure the house remains habitable. This is in the interest of both [NAME_4] and [NAME_5].

VII. LEGAL FRAMEWORK [ 76 ] Section 5 of the CHRA states that it is a discriminatory practice in the provision of goods, services, facilities or accommodation customarily available to the general public to (a) deny an individual access to any such good, service, facility or accommodation, or (b) to differentiate adversely in relation to any individual, on a prohibited ground of discrimination. [ 77 ] Section 6 of the CHRA states that it is a discriminatory practice in the provision of residential accommodation to (a) deny occupancy of such premises or accommodation to an individual, or to (b) differentiate adversely in relation to any individual, on a prohibited ground of discrimination. [ 78 ] To establish that a respondent has engaged in a discriminatory practice within the meaning of the CHRA, a complainant must first prove that the way they were treated by the respondent was, on its face, discriminatory, which is more formally referred to as establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. [ 79 ] If a complainant proves prima facie discrimination, the respondent has the opportunity to establish a statutory defence or one developed by the courts (common law defence). If the respondent succeeds, the Tribunal will find no discriminatory practice occurred ( Québec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v. [COMPANY_34]. ([COMPANY_34]) , 2015 SCC 39 [ [COMPANY_34] ] at paras 36-37). [ 80 ] To establish prima facie discrimination on the basis of sections 5 or 6 of the CHRA, a complainant must prove that it is more likely than not (i.e., on a balance of probabilities) that: (i) they have one or more characteristics protected under the CHRA (i.e., a prohibited ground of discrimination); (ii) they were denied, or denied access to, a service customarily available to the general public (s.5(a)), or they were denied occupancy of residential accommodation (s.6(a)), or they were treated in an adverse differential manner in the provision of such a service (s.5(b)) or residential accommodation (s.6(b)), by the respondent; and (iii) the prohibited ground of discrimination was a factor in the denial or adverse treatment (see [NAME_35] v [NAME_36] (Education ), 2012 SCC 61 at para 33). [ 81 ] To prove the third element of the prima facie discrimination test, a complainant must show that there is a connection between the first two elements. The protected characteristic need not be the only factor in the adverse impact or denial, and neither a causal connection nor an intention to discriminate is required ( [COMPANY_34] at paras 44-52) . [ 82 ] In deciding whether a complainant has established a prima facie case of discrimination, the Tribunal may consider all of the evidence that was introduced at the hearing by all parties with respect to the three elements of the prima facie test. This may include consideration of the respondent’s submissions and evidence, if any, aimed at rebutting the complainant’s evidence of a connection between the prohibited ground and the adverse treatment or denial, for example with a non-discriminatory and non-pretextual explanation that fully explains any adverse treatment or denial ( [COMPANY_34] at paras 58, 59, 64, 83, 84). [ 83 ] If the complainant meets their onus of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination on a balance of probabilities and the respondent advances a defence under either the CHRA (for example under section 15 of the CHRA) or the common law, then the Tribunal must consider whether the respondent has established its statutory or common law defence to the discrimination on a balance of probabilities. If the respondent does not establish a defence under the CHRA or common law, proof of the three elements of the prima facie test, on a balance of probabilities, will be sufficient for the Tribunal to find that the CHRA has been contravened (see [COMPANY_34] at para 64). [ 84 ] In responding to [NAME_4]’ complaint of discrimination within the meaning of sections 5 and 6 of the CHRA, [NAME_5] has led its own evidence and made arguments to refute her claims of discrimination. It has not advanced a defence under section 15 of the CHRA, nor a common law defence. Therefore, the Tribunal’s task is to consider all of the evidence and arguments presented by the parties to determine whether [NAME_4] has proven the three elements of a discriminatory practice on a balance of probabilities (see [COMPANY_34] at paras 56 and 64; see also [NAME_22] Child and Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v Attorney General of Canada (for the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada), 2016 CHRT 2 at para 27). [ 85 ] As the Tribunal has stated many times, “discrimination is not a practice which one would expect to see displayed overtly, in fact, there are rarely cases where one can show by direct evidence that discrimination is purposely practiced” ( [NAME_37] v [NAME_38] , 1988 CanLII 108 (CHRT) [ [NAME_37] ]). The Tribunal can therefore consider circumstantial evidence to determine what was described in  [NAME_37]  as the “subtle scent of discrimination”. However, circumstantial evidence must, if believed, tend to prove the allegation of discrimination. An inference of discrimination may only be drawn “where the evidence offered in support of it renders such an inference more probable than the other possible inferences or hypotheses” ( [NAME_39] v [NAME_40] , 2008 CHRT 41 at para 73).

VIII. ANALYSIS [ 86 ] In this section, I consider whether [NAME_4] has established a prima facie case of discrimination within the meaning of sections 5 and/or 6 of the CHRA. [ 87 ] I note that the parties have argued that the lack of repairs and renovations to [NAME_4]’ home should be considered under section 5 of the CHRA, while the allegation relating to [NAME_4] not receiving a new home from [NAME_5] should be considered under section 6 of the CHRA. As such, I consider the application of sections 5 and 6 as framed by the parties. (i) [NAME_4] have one or more characteristics protected from discrimination under section 3 of the CHRA? [ 88 ] It is undisputed that [NAME_4] is an unmarried woman and that she is a mother to three children, who she raised by herself. Her children are all adults now. Being a single mother is protected under the grounds of sex and family or marital status under section 3 of the CHRA. [ 89 ] [NAME_4] also gave evidence at the hearing that she is from a smaller clan of the [NAME_4]. She said that some families in [NAME_5] are large and that they will get together and nominate someone to run in the election for Chief and Council and then when they are elected their family members are given houses, renovations and employment, but that in her family it is just her and her brother and her three children. Being a member of a particular family has been considered under the ground of family status in other complaints before the Tribunal filed by [NAME_41] against their [NAME_20] (see, for example, [NAME_42] v [NAME_43] , 2023 CHRT 38). The Respondent provided evidence and submissions relating to this aspect of the standing of [NAME_4]’ family in [NAME_5], so I agree to consider it in this decision. (ii) [NAME_5] deny [NAME_4] a service customarily available to the general public (or access to such service), or did it deny her a residential accommodation, or treat her in an adverse differential manner in the provision of such a service or residential accommodation? (a) Section 5 – Renovations and Repairs [ 90 ] [NAME_5] does not dispute that it offers a service customarily available to the general public through its Housing program. As the owner of [NAME_5]’s homes, it accepts that it bears responsibility for keeping the homes habitable through repairs and renovations. The Tribunal has previously considered that the provision of home repairs and renovations by a [NAME_20] is a service customarily available to the general public (see, for example, [NAME_44] v [NAME_45] , 2018 CHRT 26). [ 91 ] [NAME_4] says she has been denied repairs and renovations to her home as set out in the Facts section above. As [NAME_5] did not respond to her 2019 inquiries about having her home renovated, she proceeded to do the necessary work on her home and pay for it herself and now she asks to be reimbursed for the materials and labour. [ 92 ] [NAME_5]’s position is that it has a non-discriminatory [NAME_10] that it follows when dealing with both housing allocations and repairs and renovations on the [NAME_9]. In the case of repairs and renovations, the Policy requires members to make a written request to the Housing department and to permit the home to be inspected to determine whether the repairs are necessary and who should do them. All decisions are made within the context of very limited financial resources related to housing on the [NAME_9]. [ 93 ] The Respondent provided evidence to show that, between March of 2017 and February of 2019, it paid approximately $29,000 for various work that was done on [NAME_4]’ home. [NAME_4] agreed that most of the work was carried out. The Respondent says it does not have any records of any complaints or service requisitions by [NAME_4] with respect to repairs after February of 2019, including the work she is seeking reimbursement for. It says that the Respondent has contacted [NAME_4] to inspect her property to assess any further work or repairs but that she has refused to provide consent for an inspection. It also says that she does not want to use the contractors assigned by [NAME_5], wanting to determine who will do the work herself. [NAME_5] argues that [NAME_4] has hindered its efforts to provide services that she claims have not been provided to her. It also says that she continues to perform repairs on her home without the prior approval of the Respondent. [ 94 ] I have indicated above that I do not accept the Respondent’s evidence that [NAME_4] refused to permit an inspector into her home or that she refused to work with the [NAME_32]. I prefer [NAME_4]’ evidence about this to the vague hearsay evidence provided by the Respondent. The evidence shows that [NAME_4] wrote to the Chief and Council in November of 2019 asking about the [NAME_23] and why she did not receive this benefit she had been approved for, after she had been required to move out of her home for nearly a year and rent accommodation in Edmonton, only for no work to actually be done on her home. This is a fair question from [NAME_4] and one for which she was entitled to an answer. Even if [NAME_5] had lost the RRAP funding because it did not comply with reporting requirements of the CMHC, [NAME_15] indicated that it had gotten the funding reinstated. The evidence also shows that [NAME_4]’ home did receive some renovations between 2017 and 2019, including new windows and electrical work, as well as framing and plumbing work. The Tribunal received no information from [NAME_4] or [NAME_5] about what type of work was going to be done under the [NAME_23], so I do not know if the same work was ultimately done by [NAME_5] between 2017 and 2019 or not. However, [NAME_4] was not required to move out of her home for these repairs to be done as had been required by the [NAME_23] in 2014. [ 95 ] [NAME_4] said she heard nothing from [NAME_5] after she sent her email to the Chief and Council in May of 2019, asking to be added to the agenda for a Council meeting, despite being told her request was forwarded to the Housing department. [NAME_5] says [NAME_4] was directed to speak to [NAME_4] and he allegedly said she refused inspections and would not work with the [NAME_32], I do not accept this evidence. According to [NAME_15], Mr. [NAME_4] left his job as Housing Manager in 2018 or 2019 and there were several interim Managers after that. [NAME_5] introduced no records showing anyone had tried to communicate with [NAME_4], nor did it call any of the interim Housing Managers who should have been involved in trying to have her home inspected, nor did they call the housing inspector who was allegedly refused entry to her home. [ 96 ] It seems clear that there has been a breakdown in communication between [NAME_5] and [NAME_4] that needs to be remedied. [NAME_5] needs to contact [NAME_4] to arrange for an inspection in accordance with its [NAME_10] and [NAME_4] needs to allow the inspector in so that the work she has paid for can be evaluated to determine if she can be reimbursed, and so that any further work that needs to be done to her home can occur. [ 97 ] I accept that [NAME_5]’s Housing department treated [NAME_4] in an adverse differential manner when providing a service it holds out to its members, including [NAME_4], with respect to home repairs and renovations. Specifically, I find that [NAME_4] experienced adverse differential treatment pursuant to the application of section 5 of the CHRA by the lack of responsive communication from [NAME_5] to [NAME_4] in and after 2019. Communicating with members who seek housing assistance is necessarily part of the service customarily available to the general public that the Housing department provides. [ 98 ] While I accept [NAME_5]’s position that it did not provide repairs or renovations to [NAME_4]’ home after February of 2019 because she did not submit requests in compliance with the [NAME_10], [NAME_4] had asked to be added to the agenda of a Council meeting in May of 2019 to discuss housing repairs and she asked for communication from [NAME_5] regarding the state of her home in November of 2019 with a follow up in January of 2020, and she did not receive a response from the Housing department. As a result of feeling she was being ignored by the Housing department, [NAME_4] did not bother submitting more requests and simply did some of the work herself. [ 99 ] I find that the adverse differential treatment with regard to section 5 of the CHRA lies in the lack of responsive communication from [NAME_5] to [NAME_4] with regard to her queries relating to renovations and repairs to her home. (b) Section 6 – Housing Allocation [ 100 ] [NAME_4] says she was denied a new house despite her view that she has applied for one many times over the years and meets the criteria to receive one. [ 101 ] [NAME_5] says that [NAME_4] has never completed a housing application form like the many members who are on the housing wait list have, and as required by the [NAME_10]. Despite this it has added her to the Elders wait list since 2024. Its view is that [NAME_4]’ current home is habitable, and not condemned or incapable of being repaired. [ 102 ] As with the repairs and renovation issue above, communication again seems to be an issue. [NAME_4] testified that she only became aware of the [NAME_10] and housing application form in the course of her human rights complaint, when it was disclosed by the Respondent. It appears no one has ever sent [NAME_4] a housing application form to complete and return to the Housing department. Rather, her name was simply added to the Elders wait list, but with a note that her application is incomplete. [ 103 ] I find that [NAME_5] has treated [NAME_4] in an adverse differential manner in the provision of residential accommodation by not providing her with the information she requires to apply for a new home. [NAME_5]’s evidence was that, when the Chief or Councillors become aware that a member wants a new house, the member is referred to the Housing department to complete an application form. If someone calls or attends at the Housing office, they are provided with the form to complete. [NAME_5] is aware that [NAME_4] wants a new home, but it has never sent her the application form. [NAME_4]’ name now appears on the Elders housing wait list, there is a note beside her name saying her application is incomplete, which presumably means that, until her application is completed, she will not receive a home because the Housing Authority is lacking some of the information it requires when making housing allocation decisions. This information is provided through the housing application form. [ 104 ] I find that the adverse differential treatment with regard to section 6 of the CHRA lies in the lack of communication from [NAME_5] to [NAME_4] with regard to providing her with a housing application form. (iii) Was the Complainant’s personal characteristic(s) a factor in the adverse treatment or denial of a service or residential accommodation? [ 105 ] In her Reply Closing Submissions, [NAME_4] agrees that she was never told by [NAME_5] that she would not receive housing or housing services because she was an unmarried woman or a single mother or from a small family. However, she maintains that her sex and family and marital status were at least part of the reason she did not receive a new house or renovations to her home. (a) Section 5 – Renovations and Repairs [ 106 ] [NAME_4] contends that being a single mother or an unmarried woman or from a small clan of the [NAME_4] was a factor in [NAME_5]’s lack of responsiveness to her queries about renovations and repairs to her home in and after 2019. However, there is no evidence to support such a contention. [ 107 ] Complainants must present more than bald allegations or speculation that the reason for their treatment was based at least in part on a prohibited ground in order to prove discrimination on a balance of probabilities. [NAME_4] did not do so. [ 108 ] I do not find that it is more likely than not that her sex or family status or marital status was a factor in [NAME_5]’s failure to respond to her inquiries about renovations to her home in and after 2019. In other words, as she has not demonstrated on a balance of probabilities that a prohibited ground of discrimination was a factor in the adverse treatment, she has not established a prima facie case of discrimination under section 5 of the CHRA. (b) Section 6 – Housing Allocation [ 109 ] [NAME_4] testified that she takes good care of her house and has not been allocated a new home, while other people do not take care of their houses or they are abandoned or burn down, and then they get a new house. She feels like she is being punished for taking good care of her house while others are rewarded for not taking care of their homes, and she believes the reason for this is that she is an unmarried woman with three children from a small family. [ 110 ] I do not find that it is more likely than not that [NAME_4] being a single mother or an unmarried woman was a factor in her not being provided with a housing application by the Housing department. There is simply no evidence to support such a contention. There are single mothers and unmarried women on the housing list who received and completed housing application forms. And, to the extent that not receiving a housing application form prevented her from being allocated a new house, I again do not find that her status as a single mother or unmarried woman played any role in this. The evidence shows that [NAME_5] does allocate homes to single mothers, as evidenced by the fact that [NAME_4]’ daughter, who is unmarried, was allocated two new homes in recent years to accommodate her growing family. [ 111 ] With regard to [NAME_4]’ contention that her being from a small clan of the [NAME_4] influenced the conduct or decisions of [NAME_5], I do not find that this is substantiated by the evidence. There was simply no evidence presented to the Tribunal that people from larger families were disproportionately allocated homes or that the Chief and Council had allocated homes to their own family members contrary to the Conflict of Interest section of the Election Regulations. The evidence was that most people on the [NAME_9] are related, and [NAME_4] agreed that her daughter, who is from her small clan, had received two new homes over the course of a few years. There is similarly no basis in the evidence to conclude that [NAME_4] being from a small clan of the [NAME_4] was a factor in [NAME_5] not providing her with a housing application form. [ 112 ] [NAME_4] says that, if [NAME_5] had actually followed its [NAME_10], she would have been offered new housing by now as she fits the criteria for priority housing allocation. Even if [NAME_4] did meet some of the criteria for priority housing allocation in the [NAME_10], the evidence shows that other people who have been allocated new homes by [NAME_5] had been living in overcrowded homes or were homeless or their houses were condemned or unhealthy because of sewage that leaked into the home or their home had burned down. [NAME_5]’s evidence supported its position that it allocates homes based on the highest need. Chief and Council as the Housing Authority are responsible and accountable to the members of [NAME_5] and they must make the very difficult decisions about who should receive limited housing resources when so many are in need. They do so on a case-by-case basis, considering each person’s individual circumstances. [ 113 ] Overcrowding is not an issue faced by [NAME_4] in her home. She testified that only she and her son reside at her house, although her grandchildren visit regularly. The Tribunal also did not receive evidence that [NAME_4]’ home is uninhabitable or unhealthy, despite having a leaking roof and flooding that occurs seasonally in the basement. These are obviously concerning and should be remedied. The evidence before the Tribunal is that [NAME_4] is a very capable person who takes excellent care of her home. She testified that she resolved the black mold issue by 2002 and that she recently had a new well drilled to resolve her water issue. The Respondent’s evidence was that, if she allows [NAME_5] to inspect the work that was done since 2019 that she paid for herself, such as the new well, she could be reimbursed for those expenses, since improvements to the home are to the benefit of the owner of the home, which is [NAME_5]. [ 114 ] The Respondent has provided a non-discriminatory and non-pretextual account that fully explains why [NAME_4] has not received a new home to date. Without further evidence, [NAME_4]’ belief that being a single mother, an unmarried woman, or a member of a small clan of the [NAME_4] was a reason for her adverse differential treatment by [NAME_5] with respect to receiving a housing application form and therefor with respect to housing allocation, is speculative and does not establish a prima facie case of discrimination under section 6 of the CHRA.

IX.

CONCLUSION [ 115 ] As I have not found that [NAME_5] discriminated against [NAME_4] within the meaning of sections 5 or 6 of the CHRA, I dismiss her complaint. Signed by [NAME_7] Tribunal Member Ottawa, Ontario March 30, 2026 Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Parties of Record File No. : HR-DP-2976-23 Style of Cause: [NAME_2] v [NAME_5] Decision of the Tribunal Dated: March 30, 2026 Date and Place of Hearing: November 4, 5, 6, 2024 and January 16, 2025 By Zoom Videoconference Appearances: [NAME_2] , Self-represented [NAME_46] , for the Respondent