About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

15 Hum. Rts. Dig. 1 (2014)

handle is hein.journals/hurtsdg15 and id is 1 raw text is: -Hun In Rig s Digest Vol. 15 No. 1 January 2014 t g4 AgA s ABORIGINAL PEOPLES - Indian status - public services denied - FAMILY STATUS - adopted child denied Indi- an status - family status definition includes relation- ship between adoptive parents and children - INTER- PRETATION OF STATUTES - definition of child and services customarily available to the general public - PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES - government ser- vices denied HUMAN RIGHTS - nature and purpose of human rights legislation - JURISDICTION - mootness - DISCRIMI- NATION - bona fide justification as reasonable cause for discrimination - BURDEN OF PROOF - elements of a prima facie case - DAMAGES - damages assessed for wilful or reckless discrimination - REMEDIES - notice to staff on how to interpret legislation - cease discrimi- natory practice The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled that Aborigi- nal Affairs and Northern Development Canada discrimi- nated on the grounds of marital status and family status against Joyce Beattie, T'Seluq Beattie and Nikota Beattie with respect to their registration as Indians. Ms. Beattie was born on December 4, 1949, in the com- munity of Tsiigehtchic, Northwest Territories (formerly known as Arctic Red River). Her biological parents were James Delap Harris and Roselia Harris. Four days after her birth, Ms. Beattie was custom adopted by Norbert Otto Natsie and Bernadette Natsie because her natural mother could not care for her due to illness. Norbert and Bernadette Natsie were both registered Indians and were on the Treaty 11 annuity pay list for the Gwichya Gwich'in band (formerly Loucheaux No. 6). In 1974, Ms. Beattie married Bruce Beattie, who was not registered or eligible for registration under the Indian Act. As a result of this marriage, Ms. Beattie lost any enti- tlement to registration that she may have had because she married out. At the time, this loss of status on mar- rying out only applied to Indian women not to Indian men. In 1975, Joyce and Bruce Beattie had a son, T'Seluq Beattie, and in 1976 they had a daughter, Nikota Bangloy (nee Beattie). Because of changes to the Indian Act intro- duced in 1985 that per- mitted the reinstate- ment of women who had lost Indian status because of marrying out, Joyce Beattie's birth father, James Delap Har- ris, became eligible for registration under s. 6(2) and her birth mother, Roselia Harris, became eligible for registration under s. 6 (1)(c). As a result, Ms. Beattie was then considered to have two Indian parents and she was registered under s. 6(1)(f). Her children, T'Seluq and Nikota, were registered under s. 6(2), which is half status, based on the fact that they had one parent, Joyce Beattie, who was an Indian and one parent who was not (Mr. Beattie). As a result of this, the children could not transmit status to their chil- dren if the other parent was not a registered Indian. T'Seluq Beattie had one child with a person who is not a registered Indian, and Nikota Bangloy had two children with a person who is not a registered Indian. When they applied to register these children, they were refused. The Registrar added the names of Ms. Beattie and her children to the band list of the Fort Good Hope Band, which was the band of Ms. Beattie's biological mother. When the Gender Equity in Registration Act (GEIRA) - a 2010 amendment that was also designed to elimi- nate sex discrimination from the registration provisions of the Indian Act- was introduced, Ms. Beattie wrote to inform the Registrar of her custom adoption by the Natsies, which had been officially recognized by the Northwest Territories Supreme Court. She asked that her category of registration be amended from s. 6(1)(f) to s. 6(1)(c), based on her custom adoption, and that her band membership be changed from the band of her biological mother to that of her adoptive parents. The Registrar refused. However, in December 2012, the Registrar informed Ms. Beattie that its approach had changed and she could now be registered under s. 6 (1)(c). This reversal was made possible because the Registrar changed its inter- pretation of the term child as used in the 1927 Indian Act, which was the version of the Indian Act that applied at the time of Ms. Beattie's birth. According to that Act, any child of a male Indian was an Indian. Up to this point, the respondent had interpreted that provision as including only biological children of a male Indian. How- ever, the Registrar decided that it could expand its defi- nition of the term child to include custom adopted children. The consequences were as follows: Ms. Beattie was recognized as entitled to registra- tion as an Indian as the child of a male Indian (her custom adoptive father); She lost her Indian status when she married Bruce Beattie in 1974; She was entitled to reinstatement under s. 6(1)(c) CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS REPORTER 1-11 PUBLISHER OF CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS LAW The federal government discriminated against chil- dren who were adopted according to Aboriginal custom by refusing to use the eligibility of the custom adoptive parents to deter- mine their eligibility for Indian status.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most