Communications, Energy And Paperworkers Union of Canada v. Bell Canada

Communications, Energy And Paperworkers Union of Canada v. Bell Canada

Tribunal allowed limited cross-examination of Ms. Blackstaffe regarding the Subcommittee's visit to AT&T and how that information was used but refused evaluative comparison or direct reliance on AT&T scoring because the witness lacked direct qualification; refused further cross-examination on the Terms of Reference as cumulative given existing documentary and testimonial record; declined to rule on admissibility of Dr. Gould's report as premature and to be decided after the expert's qualifications are presented; denied CEP's request to cap remaining cross-examination time but imposed procedural expectations to limit repetition and delay.

Citation
2004 CHRT 26
Parties
Complainant: Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada and Femmes-Action; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Bell Canada
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Tribunal Proceeding / Ruling on Motions During Evidentiary Stage
Outcome
Partial grant and partial denial: Bell granted limited cross-examination on AT&T Study (narrow scope); no further cross-examination on Terms of Reference; motion to exclude Dr. Gould's report denied as premature (postponed); CEP's request to limit cross-examination time denied.
Legal Topics
Pay Equity, Expert Evidence Admissibility, Cross Examination Limits, Hearsay, Relevance
Source Language
English
Human Rights Employment Law Administrative Law Evidence Pay Equity Expert Evidence Admissibility Cross Examination Limits Hearsay +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada and Femmes-Action

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Bell Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Tribunal Proceeding / Ruling on Motions During Evidentiary Stage

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Bell may cross-examine CEP witness on the AT&T Study and the permissible scope of that cross-examination
  2. 2 Whether the Terms of Reference and operation of the Subcommittee require further cross-examination
  3. 3 Whether Bell's challenge to the admissibility of Dr. Gould's expert report on interest should be decided at this time

Ratio Decidendi

Tribunal allowed limited cross-examination of Ms. Blackstaffe regarding the Subcommittee's visit to AT&T and how that information was used but refused evaluative comparison or direct reliance on AT&T scoring because the witness lacked direct qualification; refused further cross-examination on the Terms of Reference as cumulative given existing documentary and testimonial record; declined to rule on admissibility of Dr. Gould's report as premature and to be decided after the expert's qualifications are presented; denied CEP's request to cap remaining cross-examination time but imposed procedural expectations to limit repetition and delay.

Court Disposition

Partial grant and partial denial: Bell granted limited cross-examination on AT&T Study (narrow scope); no further cross-examination on Terms of Reference; motion to exclude Dr. Gould's report denied as premature (postponed); CEP's request to limit cross-examination time denied.

Orders

  • Bell may cross-examine Ms. Blackstaffe about the Subcommittee's visit to AT&T, what she learned and how the information was used, but Bell shall not pursue evaluative comparisons of point scores or matters requiring direct knowledge or qualifications she does not possess
  • No further cross-examination on the Terms of Reference; existing extensive documentary and testimonial record is sufficient