Rizzo v. Air Canada

Rizzo v. Air Canada

The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine and limit the scope of the complaint but must confine inquiry to grounds and allegations considered by the Commission; because the original complaint and referral identified disability as the ground and the Commission referred the matter for inquiry only for 2014–2018, sex is excluded as a ground, paragraphs 7 and 10 of the Statement of Particulars are not struck as they can reasonably be read as disability-related, and the temporal scope is limited to 2014–2018 per the Commission referral.

Citation
2023 CHRT 16
Parties
Complainant: Sabrina Rizzo; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Air Canada
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Disability Discrimination / Ruling on Pre Hearing Motion Regarding Scope of Complaint
Outcome
Motion granted in part: the Tribunal rules that sex is not a ground of discrimination in the proceedings, paragraphs 7 and 10 of the Statement of Particulars are not struck out, and the temporal scope of the inquiry is limited to 2014–2018.
Legal Topics
Scope of Complaint, Grounds of Discrimination, Striking Pleadings, Jurisdiction, Time Limitation
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Administrative Law Employment Law Disability Discrimination Scope of Complaint Grounds of Discrimination Striking Pleadings Jurisdiction +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 7 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sabrina Rizzo

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Air Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Disability Discrimination / Ruling on Pre Hearing Motion Regarding Scope of Complaint

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to determine the scope of the complaint?
  2. 2 Is 'sex' a ground of discrimination to be considered in this proceeding?
  3. 3 Should portions of the Statement of Particulars (paragraphs 7 and 10) be struck or modified?

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine and limit the scope of the complaint but must confine inquiry to grounds and allegations considered by the Commission; because the original complaint and referral identified disability as the ground and the Commission referred the matter for inquiry only for 2014–2018, sex is excluded as a ground, paragraphs 7 and 10 of the Statement of Particulars are not struck as they can reasonably be read as disability-related, and the temporal scope is limited to 2014–2018 per the Commission referral.

Court Disposition

Motion granted in part: the Tribunal rules that sex is not a ground of discrimination in the proceedings, paragraphs 7 and 10 of the Statement of Particulars are not struck out, and the temporal scope of the inquiry is limited to 2014–2018.

Orders

  • Sex is not a prohibited ground of discrimination in these proceedings and will not be considered by the Tribunal.
  • Paragraphs 7 and 10 of Ms. Rizzo’s Statement of Particulars shall remain and shall not be struck out.