Communications, Energy and Paperworks Union of Canada v. Bell Canada

Communications, Energy and Paperworks Union of Canada v. Bell Canada

The Tribunal held that the fact the Tribunal did not consult experts when amending the default interest rate in 2004 is not probative of whether expert evidence is necessary in this individual case; that evidence is irrelevant to the necessity inquiry and is therefore inadmissible in support of Bell's motion.

Citation
2005 CHRT 3
Parties
Complainant: Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada; Complainant: Femmes-Action; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Bell Canada
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 January 2005
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Tribunal Proceeding / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence (motion)
Outcome
Bell Canada's request to introduce evidence that no expert was consulted when the Tribunal amended the default interest rate in 2004 is denied; the question whether to admit Dr. Gould's evidence remains to be decided on the merits.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Interest Awards, Default Interest Rate, Compensation, S.53(4) CHRA, Rule 9(12)
Source Language
English
Human Rights Administrative Law Evidence Law Tribunal Procedure Admissibility of Expert Evidence Interest Awards Default Interest Rate Compensation +2 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 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada

Complainant

Femmes-Action

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Bell Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Tribunal Proceeding / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence (motion)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether expert evidence is necessary to determine the appropriate rate and period of interest for an award of compensation
  2. 2 Whether the fact that no expert was consulted when the Tribunal amended the default interest rate in 2004 is admissible and probative on the question of necessity of expert evidence in this case
  3. 3 Application of s.53(4) CHRA and Rule 9(12) to admission of expert evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that the fact the Tribunal did not consult experts when amending the default interest rate in 2004 is not probative of whether expert evidence is necessary in this individual case; that evidence is irrelevant to the necessity inquiry and is therefore inadmissible in support of Bell's motion.

Court Disposition

Bell Canada's request to introduce evidence that no expert was consulted when the Tribunal amended the default interest rate in 2004 is denied; the question whether to admit Dr. Gould's evidence remains to be decided on the merits.

Orders

  • Request by Bell Canada to introduce as evidence that no expert was consulted when the Tribunal amended the default interest rate in 2004 is denied.