Turner v. Canada Border Services Agency

Turner v. Canada Border Services Agency

The motion was dismissed because the Tribunal's inquiry is limited to the selection boards' decision‑making and the materials those boards had; the Respondent failed to show the requested third‑party documents were arguably relevant to those records or to the issues the Tribunal must determine, the requests risked a speculative fishing expedition and imposed disproportionate burden and delay relative to any probative value.

Citation
2018 CHRT 1
Parties
Complainant: Levan Turner; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Canada Border Services Agency
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 January 2018
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Discrimination Complaint (chrt) / Ruling on Production Motion (pre Hearing Disclosure)
Outcome
Respondent's motion for production dismissed
Legal Topics
Age, Colour, National or Ethnic Origin, Race, Perceived Disability, Document Production, Relevance, Credibility, Disclosure Obligations
Source Language
English
Human Rights Administrative Law Employment Law Evidence and Procedure Discrimination Law Age Colour National or Ethnic Origin +6 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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Levan Turner

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Canada Border Services Agency

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Discrimination Complaint (chrt) / Ruling on Production Motion (pre Hearing Disclosure)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether documents relating to the Complainant's education and volunteer activities are arguably relevant to the Selection Processes and the Tribunal's inquiry
  2. 2 Scope of disclosure under s.50(1) of the CHRA and Tribunal Rules 6(1)(d), 6(4) and 6(5)
  3. 3 Whether the production request amounts to a fishing expedition or is speculative

Ratio Decidendi

The motion was dismissed because the Tribunal's inquiry is limited to the selection boards' decision‑making and the materials those boards had; the Respondent failed to show the requested third‑party documents were arguably relevant to those records or to the issues the Tribunal must determine, the requests risked a speculative fishing expedition and imposed disproportionate burden and delay relative to any probative value.

Court Disposition

Respondent's motion for production dismissed

Orders

  • Respondent's motion for production dismissed