The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has dismissed two complaints alleging systemic racism in the death of two Indigenous people in Timmins several years ago because both of the complainants are no longer living. The complaints were filed by the families of Joey Knapaysweet and Marie Helen Agnes Sutherland Inishinapay, who both died in 2018 in Timmins. Both deaths created tensions at the time and raised concerns about systemic racism. Knapaysweet was 21 when he was shot and killed by Timmins police on Feb. 3 of that year. He was from the James Bay community of Fort Albany -- more than an hour’s flight from Timmins. He had gone to Timmins to “seek help in dreams for betterment of his life,” according to a statement from his mother, Micheline Knapaysweet. “What did he do that was so bad that he had to be shot and killed?” the statement said. “I am so heartbroken, with so many questions unanswered.” The province’s Special Investigation Unit said there were no grounds to charge police. Officers responded to an ambulance bay in the city and found Knapaysweet in crisis. “The male was armed with a knife and yelling at police officers to shoot him in the head,” the SIU report said. “A conducted energy weapon was deployed but was ineffective.” He was shot and killed when he charged at a police officer, the SIU said. The full SIU report can be accessed here. Sutherland, 62, had been released from hospital in Timmins, despite suffering from serious medical issues, according to the SIU investigation. She refused treatment at hospital and said she wanted to go back to Fort Albany. Sutherland woke up with chest pains on the morning of Feb. 3, 2018, and was taken back to hospital. “The complainant was examined and advised by the doctor to undergo her dialysis treatment,” the SIU said. “The complainant again refused her dialysis treatment and she told the hospital staff she wanted to go back to Fort Albany to die, as she was tired of living.” Sutherland was then examined by the hospital’s on-call psychiatrist, who ruled she was mentally competent to make decisions about her own care. However, it was the weekend, and arrangements for her to travel home couldn’t be made until Monday. She was unhappy about leaving the hospital and police followed her taxi back to the shelter. Sutherland was still “belligerent,” the SIU said, and shelter staff refused to take her in. She ended up in police custody – after which she asked to go back to hospital to speak with the psychiatrist. “The complainant was again transported to the hospital, arriving at approximately 10:07 p.m.,” the SIU report said. Deaths sparked outrage “The complainant was examined in the emergency department and then transferred to the Hospice Centre. On Feb. 4, 2018, at approximately 8:15 p.m., the complainant was pronounced dead.” Read the full report here. Both deaths sparked outrage. Grand Chief Alvin Fiddler of the Nishnawbe Aski Nation, which represents nearly 50 Indigenous communities in the region, expressed concern in an interview. “It’s very troubling,” Fiddler said in 2018. “The families have a lot of questions.” In 2019, the families of both victims filed complaints with the human rights tribunal, alleging discrimination “because of age, ancestry, ethnic origin, place of origin, colour, race, sex, and disability,” violation the province’s human rights code. “The application narrative and various submissions provided that the discrimination is alleged to have occurred as against Agnes Sutherland, during interactions with the women’s shelter, the hospital, and the police service, during a mental and physical health crisis,” Denise Ghanam, the tribunal’s vice-chair, wrote in the decision. The family of Joey Knapaysweet also filed a complaint at the same time, about a year after he was killed. However, in a decision released in May of last year, the tribunal ruled that only a person can file a complaint, rejecting arguments that someone’s estate can be viewed as a person in the complaints process. “I do not presume to broaden the definition of ‘person’ to include an estate trustee as capable of making a claim of discrimination,” Ghanam’s decision said. Legislation would have to change “Such a decision is solely within the purview of the Legislature of Ontario.” As the laws are currently written, “neither an estate nor an estate trustee is entitled to commence an application under section 34(1) of the Code and cannot satisfy the requirements in section 34(5). As such, the applicants do not have standing to bring this application to the tribunal and it must be dismissed.” The decision also addressed arguments that dismissing the complaint would hamper reconciliation efforts with First Nations communities. “As well, the Indigenous estate trustees may perceive this dismissal as a slight based on their own ancestry,” the decision said. “While I understand the importance of these issues to the parties affected, my authority is limited to interpreting and applying the code. I therefore cannot consider them in making my decision on the jurisdiction of the tribunal to consider this application. The question of reconciliation is not a specific code issue to be considered.” Read the full rulings here and here.
