Simon v. Abegweit First Nation

Simon v. Abegweit First Nation

The Tribunal exercised its procedural discretion to hear the Complainant's motion to add an act of retaliation first, and granted the amendment because the complaint had been previously filed, the alleged denial of funding occurred after that filing, the facts show a plausible nexus between the original complaint...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2018 CHRT 31
Parties
Complainant: Cheryl Simon; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Abegweit First Nation
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Canadian Human Rights Act Complaint (retaliation and Discrimination) / Interim Ruling on Motion to Amend Complaint (motion to Add Allegation of Retaliation)
Outcome
Granted the Complainant's motion to add an act of retaliation under s.14.1 CHRA in relation to denial of post-secondary funding; dismissed the Respondent's incidental request to deal with its motion to dismiss first
Legal Topics
Retaliation/reprisal (s.14.1 Chra), Discrimination (s.5 Chra), Amendment of Complaint, Jurisdiction, Procedural Fairness, Post Secondary Funding
Source Language
english
Human Rights Administrative Law Retaliation/reprisal (s.14.1 Chra) Discrimination (s.5 Chra) Amendment of Complaint Jurisdiction Procedural Fairness Post Secondary Funding

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cheryl Simon

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Abegweit First Nation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Canadian Human Rights Act Complaint (retaliation and Discrimination) / Interim Ruling on Motion to Amend Complaint (motion to Add Allegation of Retaliation)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal should prioritize the Respondent's motion to dismiss over the Complainant's motion to add an allegation of retaliation
  2. 2 Whether the Complainant's proposed amendment to add an act of retaliation under s.14.1 CHRA is allowable at this stage
  3. 3 Whether there is a sufficient nexus between the original complaint and the alleged act of retaliation

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal exercised its procedural discretion to hear the Complainant's motion to add an act of retaliation first, and granted the amendment because the complaint had been previously filed, the alleged denial of funding occurred after that filing, the facts show a plausible nexus between the original complaint and the funding denial (continuum from same factual matrix), the motion was timely and early in the proceedings, the proposed amendment was not plainly incapable of success, and permitting it would not cause undue prejudice as parties have opportunity to amend disclosure and witness lists; therefore leave to amend was justified and the Respondent's request to prioritize its...

Court Disposition

Granted the Complainant's motion to add an act of retaliation under s.14.1 CHRA in relation to denial of post-secondary funding; dismissed the Respondent's incidental request to deal with its motion to dismiss first

Orders

  • Complainant's motion to add allegation of retaliation under s.14.1 CHRA is granted in respect of denial of post-secondary funding
  • Respondent's request to prioritize its motion to dismiss is denied and that motion will be dealt with later in process