Bentley v. Air Canada and Air Canada Pilots Association

Bentley v. Air Canada and Air Canada Pilots Association

The Tribunal is limited to considering the allegation expressly referred by the Commission—that L75.07 of LOU 75 is discriminatory based on age—because the Commission's letter to the Chairperson confines the scope and the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to review the Commission's referral decision; accordingly the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2016 CHRT 17
Parties
Complainant: Roy Bentley; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Air Canada; Respondent: Air Canada Pilots Association
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Complaint / Pre Hearing Ruling and Case Management
Outcome
Ruling limiting scope to allegation that L75.07 of LOU 75 is discriminatory based on age and issuance of procedural orders
Legal Topics
Scope of Referral, Tribunal Jurisdiction, Expert Evidence Disclosure, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
english
Human Rights Age Discrimination Administrative Law Labour Relations Scope of Referral Tribunal Jurisdiction Expert Evidence Disclosure Procedural Fairness

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roy Bentley

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Air Canada

Respondent

Air Canada Pilots Association

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Complaint / Pre Hearing Ruling and Case Management

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal may conduct a de novo inquiry beyond the specific allegation referred by the Commission
  2. 2 Whether the Commission's referral letter limits the scope of the Tribunal's inquiry
  3. 3 Whether the Complainant must disclose expert witness identity and report with the Statement of Particulars

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal is limited to considering the allegation expressly referred by the Commission—that L75.07 of LOU 75 is discriminatory based on age—because the Commission's letter to the Chairperson confines the scope and the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to review the Commission's referral decision; accordingly the Tribunal struck specified portions of the SOP and exercised its discretion to order phased disclosure of SOPs, witness identification and to schedule a case management conference to set timelines for any expert reports.

Court Disposition

Ruling limiting scope to allegation that L75.07 of LOU 75 is discriminatory based on age and issuance of procedural orders

Orders

  • Paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, 17B Issue #1, 18 and 20 are struck from the Complainant's Statement of Particulars (SOP)
  • The Complainant will provide the name of the Air Canada pilot and a summary of his/her expected testimony to the Respondents within two (2) weeks of the date of this ruling if he intends to call this witness