A-95-23 FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Since then, the government of Quebec, Canada and the First Nation have established and renewed agreements relating to the funding and the delivery of police services in the First Nation’s community.6 The complaint argues that Canada discriminated against the First Nation by failing to sufficiently fund the First Nation’s operation of its police service through the tripartite agreements signed with. [...] The Tribunal held that the implementation of the Program had not entirely eliminated discrimination towards the First Nation and as such, did not achieve the objective of substantive equality.10 The Tribunal was of the view that the Program did not allow for an assessment of the real needs of the community11 and did not permit the First Nation to offer police coverage at a level equal to that offe. [...] Also, Canada’s suggestion that the Court should consider the total amount of financial contributions made to the First Nation and the Program’s recent annual funding increase is irrelevant to the determination of whether the funding met the First Nation’s needs or the objectives of the Program. [...] Second, the Caring Society intends to argue that Canada erroneously relies on the separation of powers “as a means to evade the federal government’s obligations to eliminate discrimination pursuant to the CHRA”.25 According to the Caring Society, the principle of separation of powers “does not preclude the Tribunal from recognizing the federal government’s positive obligations” and Canada “cannot. [...] Lastly, should this Court authorize the intervention and the filing of further memoranda, the time for filing the requisition for hearing (Rule 347 of the Federal Courts Rules) and the Book of Authorities (Rule 348 of the Federal Courts Rules) should be extended and be filed within 30 days of the Appelant’s reply memorandum of fact and law.