Hughes v. Canada Border Services Agency

Hughes v. Canada Border Services Agency

The Tribunal held the requested materials met the arguable relevance threshold and ordered targeted disclosure to balance probative value and production burden: the CAS report and assessment materials for Candidates A and B must be produced within 21 days, and the Respondent must either produce assessment materials for Candidate #1–#9 from the 2003 selection process or produce a list of screened-out candidate names from which the Complainant may select materials; privacy concerns were not found compelling to bar production and full production may be ordered if the provided materials prove inadequate.

Citation
2016 CHRT 7
Parties
Complainant: Chris Hughes; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Canada Border Services Agency
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Canadian Human Rights Act Complaint (age and Disability) / Interim Ruling on Disclosure Motions (pre Hearing)
Outcome
Motion granted in part; disclosure ordered as specified with alternatives to limit burden
Legal Topics
Disclosure, Age Discrimination, Disability Discrimination, Procedural Motions, Confidentiality
Source Language
English
Human Rights Employment Administrative Law Disclosure Age Discrimination Disability Discrimination Procedural Motions Confidentiality

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chris Hughes

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Canada Border Services Agency

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Canadian Human Rights Act Complaint (age and Disability) / Interim Ruling on Disclosure Motions (pre Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Corporate Administrative System (CAS) report showing ages of externally hired Border Services Officers in the Pacific Region from 2001–2009 must be produced
  2. 2 Whether assessment materials for two candidates (A and B) from selection process 2005-BSF-OC-PAC-1001 must be produced
  3. 3 Whether a sampling of assessment materials from selection process 2003-1727-PAC-3391-1002 is arguably relevant and, if so, the appropriate scope and method of production

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held the requested materials met the arguable relevance threshold and ordered targeted disclosure to balance probative value and production burden: the CAS report and assessment materials for Candidates A and B must be produced within 21 days, and the Respondent must either produce assessment materials for Candidate #1–#9 from the 2003 selection process or produce a list of screened-out candidate names from which the Complainant may select materials; privacy concerns were not found compelling to bar production and full production may be ordered if the provided materials prove inadequate.

Court Disposition

Motion granted in part; disclosure ordered as specified with alternatives to limit burden

Orders

  • Respondent to produce the Corporate Administrative System (CAS) report setting out ages of Border Services Officers hired externally in the Pacific Region from 2001 to 2009 within 21 days of this Ruling
  • Respondent to produce assessment materials for Candidates A and B (selection process 2005-BSF-OC-PAC-1001) within 21 days of this Ruling