By: Elysa Darling and Drew Lafond
PDF Version: UN Human Rights Committee Rules Indian Act is Discriminatory in McIvor Case
Decision Commented On: Views adopted by the Committee under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, concerning communication No. 2020/2010
*Note on terminology: “Indian” is used to describe a person defined as such under the Indian Act and is not intended to carry any derogatory connotations in this post.
Introduction
In a decision released on January 14, 2019, the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) determined that the Government of Canada violated the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) by discriminating against First Nations women and their descendants through Status requirements under the Indian Act, RSC 1985, c I-5. The decision was one that the claimants, Sharon McIvor and her son Jacob Grismer, had been waiting for more than a decade since their case was first heard by the British Columbia Superior Court in 2007.
To understand McIvor and Grismer’s complaint to the UNHRC and the litigation that preceded it, a review of their family lineage and the many amendments made to the Indian Act will be reviewed in this post. We will also briefly review the Status provisions of the Indian Act and the litigation and legislative amendments that have resulted from claims of sex discrimination under the Act, review McIvor and Grismer’s litigation, and summarize the arguments made to the UNHRC and the Committee’s final decision.