Systemic discrimination against Indigenous people

Indigenous peoples

Systemic discrimination against Indigenous people

Last updated: May 21, 2025

Society’s attitudes, rules, and structures disadvantage certain groups of people. The result is systemic discrimination. Indigenous people experience systemic discrimination in many settings.

This page lists examples of systemic discrimination. Under each area is a list of some cases or reports that discuss the issue.

Policing and criminal justice system:

Indigenous people are over and under policed: R v. Le, 2019 SCC 34; Campbell v. Vancouver Police Board (No. 4), 2019 BCHRT 275 at para. 111
Indigenous people are disproportionately impacted by street checks: R v. Le, 2019 SCC 34 at para. 94-95
Many Indigenous people do not trust the police and do not trust they are safe with the police: R v. Le, 2019 SCC 34at para. 95; Campbell v. Vancouver Police Board (No. 4), 2019 BCHRT 275 at para. 111
Indigenous people are overrepresented in the prison system: R v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13 at para. 65; R v. Gladue, [1999] 1 SCR 688 at para 58 ff; R v. Sharma, 2022 SCC 39 at para. 3
There is systemic anti-Indigenous discrimination in the criminal justice system: R v. Williams, [1998] 1 SCR 1128at para. 58; R v. Gladue, [1999] 1 SCR 688 at para. 61
There is systemic anti-Indigenous discrimination in corrections, including: “Indigenous offenders are more likely to receive higher security classifications, to spend more time in segregation, to serve more of their sentence behind bars before release, to be under-represented in community supervision populations, and to return to prison on revocation of parole”: R v. Ewart, 2018 SCC 30 e.g. at paras. 60, 65

Systemic discrimination in child welfare and family law:

Indigenous people are overrepresented in the child welfare system: R v Friesen, 2020 SCC 9 at para. 70; Campbell v. Vancouver Police Board (No. 4), 2019 BCHRT 275 at para. 113; RR v. VACFSS (No. 6), 2022 BCHRT 116 at paras. 34-38, overturned but not on this point in 2024 BCSC 97.
Indigenous people have good reason to distrust child welfare interventions and may find it difficult to work with child welfare agencies: Kina Gbezhgomi Child and Family Services v. M.A, 2020 ONCJ 414 at para. 44; RR v. VACFSS (No. 6), 2022 BCHRT 116 at paras. 34-38, overturned but not on this point in 2024 BCSC 97at para. 364
Additional concerns range from the cultural inadequacy of child welfare services to the underfunding of child welfare agencies, and misallocation of resources away from Indigenous families, extended kin and other potential community-based systems of care and support towards mainstream care providers: Ontario Human Rights Commission, (2018) “To dream together: Indigenous peoples and human rights dialogue report” at p. 40-41.
When the colonial powers imposed Western laws on Indigenous peoples, they caused disorder, disruption, and disconnection. In their most devastating forms, these disruptions result in the denial of Indigenous parents’ right to raise their own children. While Indigenous legal traditions and cultures are diverse and distinct, Indigenous peoples “share a common experience that their … legal traditions are not reflected in Canada’s multi-juridical state” … When Indigenous clients do not see their cultures, histories, language, practices, or laws reflected in family legal systems, they have little reason to place trust in these systems or see them as credible. When Indigenous people do choose to navigate the family law system, or have no choice but to engage with it, they may be subjected to real trauma, consciously or unconsciously, by their lawyer, opposing counsel, or the court. A failure to understand or make space for Indigenous concepts relating to the best interests of children and families can also result in decisions that impair the ability of Indigenous communities to maintain important connections: Rise Women’s Legal Centre (Myrna McCallum and Haley Hrymak) (January 2022) “Decolonizing Family Law through Trauma-Informed Practices” at p. 12 and 32.

Systemic discrimination in health care:

Indigenous people face systemic discrimination in health care: Mr. C v. Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and another, 2021 BCHRT 22at para. 55
This includes unacceptable personal interactions, long wait times/denial of service, lack of communication/shunning, not believing/minimizing concerns; inappropriate or no pain management; rough treatment; medical mistakes; lack of recognition/respect regarding cultural protocols: Dr. M.E. Turpel-Lafond (Aki-Kwe), In Plain Sight: Addressing Indigenous-specific Racism and Discrimination in B.C. Health Care (2020) at p. 22
Barriers resulting from the distant location of such services and/or the failure of governments to adequately fund and support health services in Indigenous communities or provide linguistically accessible and culturally competent services: Ontario Human Rights Commission, (2018) “To dream together: Indigenous peoples and human rights dialogue report” at p. 43.
Active stereotypes in healthcare include that Indigenous people are less worthy of care, drinkers/alcohols, drug-seeking, bad parents, “frequent flyers”, irresponsible/non-compliers, less capable, and unfairly advantaged: Dr. M.E. Turpel-Lafond (Aki-Kwe), In Plain Sight: Addressing Indigenous-specific Racism and Discrimination in B.C. Health Care (2020) at p. 21

Systemic discrimination – gender and age:

Indigenous women, girls, and sex workers face disproportionately high rates of sexual violence: Reclaiming Power and Place: The Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls; R. v. Barton, 2019 SCC 33 at para. 198
Indigenous children are disproportionately at risk of sexual violence. This risk is exacerbated by intersecting factors including living in poverty or government care; disability (children with disability may be perceived as “easier to victimize” and face barriers to reporting); sexual orientation and gender identity (LGBT2Q+ children are especially vulnerable because of their marginalization): R v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9 at para. 70-73

Systemic discrimination in other services:

“Shopping while Indigenous”: Respondents described common experiences of service denial where they were not served, or were served after others, or were followed or stopped by security guards in stores (one person jokingly called this “shopping while Indigenous”): Expanding Our Vision: Cultural Equality and Indigenous Peoples’ Human Rights at p. 20-23
“Consumer racial profiling is defined as any type of differential treatment based on a perception of the consumer’s race or ethnicity that constitutes the denial or degradation of the product or services offered to the consumer (Williams et al., 2001). This practice may or may not be intentional. Through the literature, consumer racial profiling has been shown to affect members of racialized groups including those who identify as Black, African, Hispanic, Asian, and First Nations. Since September 11, 2001, there has been heightened interest and concerns about consumer racial profiling of those perceived by others as Middle Eastern or Muslim”: David v. Sobeys Group Inc. (No. 1), 2015 CanLII 154352 (NS HRC) at para. 65; see also Radek v. Henderson Development (Canada) and Securiguard Services (No. 3), 2005 BCHRT 302; Smallboy v. Grafton Apparel, 2021 BCHRT 15 at para. 29; Harris v. Amaranth Financial Services Inc. dba Speedy Cash Payday Advances, 2023 BCHRT 190 at para. 28.
Status cards: “In first-hand accounts of experiences using their status cards, First Nations people describe the reactions from storekeepers or business that include: commentary on appearance (e.g., “you don’t look Native”); treated with suspicion and subjected to extra security measures; treated as an inconvenience, burden, hassle, or annoyance; treated with curiosity and genuine interest; eye-rolling, sighing, shrugging, snickering, whispering, huffing and puffing; and given dirty looks or a “long look”: Union of BC Indian Chiefs, (2022) “They Sigh or Give You the Look: Discrimination and Status Card Usage “ at p. 50

Systemic discrimination in publication:

BC’s Office of the Human Rights Commissioner has found many instances of online hate directed at Indigenous Peoples: “The Canadian Anti-Hate Network documented increases in online hate on social media sites, including racial slurs and people advocating violence. For example, a Nuu-chah-nulth Nation individual posted a message supporting land protectors on their Instagram post and received more than 600 death threats and racial slurs after posting it. … We also heard about hate targeting Indigenous Peoples in comments of online media news stories. One Inquiry participant provided the Commissioner with screen shots of racist and hateful comments targeting Indigenous Peoples on a local B.C. news site”: (2023) “From hate to hope: Report of the Inquiry into hate in the COVID-19 pandemic” (2023) at pp. 34-35.
“The role of the media industry and media platforms in encouraging and enabling anti-Indigenous sentiment and stereotyping was a key theme arising from the analysis of historic print media and present-day online platforms”: Union of BC Indian Chiefs, (2022) “They Sigh or Give You the Look: Discrimination and Status Card Usage” at p. 15.

Systemic discrimination in religion:

Indigenous people have been systemically denied the right to their own spiritual practices, on the premise that those practice were illegitimate or inferior to Christianity: Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, (2015) “What We Have Learned: Principles of Truth and Reconciliation”. See also: Smith v. Mohan (No. 2), 2020 BCHRT 52; Kelly v. B.C. (Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General) (No. 3), 2011 BCHRT 183

Systemic discrimination – land, food, water, housing:

Much was said about the failure of prevailing human rights approaches to adequately address fundamental first-order needs such as food security, clean water and safe and accessible housing. Many people identified these as issues of primary importance for Indigenous communities that were inadequately addressed by domestic human rights legislation: Ontario Human Rights Commission, (2018) “To dream together: Indigenous peoples and human rights dialogue report” at p. 39-40
“The increase in Indigenous people living away from their home territories is intricately tied to a legacy of discrimination”:
Dickson v. Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, 2024 SCC 10at para. 375.
As part of the ongoing legacy of colonialism, Indigenous people “experience high rates of unemployment and poverty, and face serious disadvantage in the areas of education, health and housing”: Lovelace v. Ontario, [2000] 1 SCR 950 at para. 69; R. v. Kapp at para. 59
People commonly reported being denied an opportunity to rent homes and reflected on the difficulty of proving that this was because they are Indigenous: Expanding Our Vision Report, p. 28. See also: Smith v. Mohan (No. 2), 2020 BCHRT 52.
See also: DesRosiers v. Manhas, 2000 BCHRT 23, which intersected with source of income; Flamand v. DGN Investments, 2005 HRTO 10, which intersected with family status, and Smith v. Mohan (No. 2), 2020 BCHRT 52, which intersected with religion.

Systemic discrimination in education:

Education at elementary, secondary and post-secondary levels was identified as a common area of discrimination. Discrimination ranged from the content taught to the treatment of students, including common instances where bullying of Indigenous students was not addressed: Expanding Our Vision Report, p. 27. See also Great Aunt obo herself and another v. BC Ministry of Education, 2018 BCHRT 185; J.N. v British Columbia Commissioner for Teacher Regulation, 2019 BCSC 2 at para. 126
The education system was raised on many occasions as an area of human rights concern. Issues discussed ranged from the geographic barriers to accessing educational institutions, to the need to further integrate Indigenous language, culture and history study into curriculum at all educational levels: Ontario Human Rights Commission, (2018) “To dream together: Indigenous peoples and human rights dialogue report” at p. 40
“The last of the residential schools closed in the 1990s, but the history of Indigenous peoples in British Columbia since European contact makes it easy to understand why Nuu-chah-nulth children have not thrived in the public school system. The TRC found that the residential school system “degraded Aboriginal culture and subjected students to humiliating discipline,” and that residential schools “must bear a portion of responsibility for the current gap between the educational success of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians” (p. 132). The evidence in our case establishes that a substantial gap continues to exist in the Alberni School District”: Servatius v Alberni School District No. 70, 2020 BCSC 15

Systemic discrimination in employment:

Instances of intersectionality were common workplace concerns, and people often reported being discriminated against on multiple grounds. For example, as a woman and Indigenous, or as a youth and Indigenous. Higher rates of unemployment amongst Indigenous communities resulted in the underreporting of workplace related discrimination for fear of retaliation, or loss of job opportunities in the future: Expanding Our Vision Report at p. 25
See also: Small Legs v. Dhillon, 2008 BCHRT 104; Small Legs v. CCS Complete Car Services Ltd. and others, 2022 BCHRT 71

** Indigenous identity was added to the Code in November 2021. Therefore, many of the cases refer to the grounds of race, ancestry, and place of origin. These cases still provide helpful examples of where the Tribunal has found and not found discrimination.