Communications, Energy and Paper Workers Union of Canada v. Bell Canada

Communications, Energy and Paper Workers Union of Canada v. Bell Canada

The Tribunal found Dr. Gould properly qualified and that the necessity limb of Mohan is satisfied because the technical financial questions about the appropriate interest rate and calculation method are outside the Tribunal's expertise; therefore his expert evidence is admissible and Bell's motion to exclude is dismissed.

Citation
2005 CHRT 15
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
28 January 2005
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Tribunal Proceeding / Ruling on Admissibility of Expert Testimony
Outcome
Bell's motion to exclude Dr. Lawrence Gould's expert testimony dismissed; Dr. Gould's expert evidence admitted into evidence.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Interest Awards, Expert Qualification, Application of Mohan Test, Statutory Evidentiary Discretion Under CHRA
Source Language
English
Human Rights Evidence Administrative Law Tribunal Procedure Admissibility of Expert Evidence Interest Awards Expert Qualification Application of Mohan Test +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 5 Authorities cited 5 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 Expert Testimony

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proposed expert testimony of Dr. Lawrence Gould is admissible
  2. 2 Whether the necessity prong of the Mohan test is met given s.50(3)(c) of the CHRA
  3. 3 Whether the subject matter is within the Tribunal's own knowledge and experience

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found Dr. Gould properly qualified and that the necessity limb of Mohan is satisfied because the technical financial questions about the appropriate interest rate and calculation method are outside the Tribunal's expertise; therefore his expert evidence is admissible and Bell's motion to exclude is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Bell's motion to exclude Dr. Lawrence Gould's expert testimony dismissed; Dr. Gould's expert evidence admitted into evidence.

Orders

  • Motion dismissed; Dr. Lawrence Gould's expert evidence received by the Tribunal