Itty v. Canada Border Services Agency

Itty v. Canada Border Services Agency

The Tribunal allowed the amendment because the section 10 systemic claim arises from the same factual matrix as the section 7 personal discrimination claim, does not constitute a new unreferenced complaint, the Respondent had notice of the allegations and can defend them, and the asserted delay did not amount to actual prejudice that would impair a fair hearing.

Citation
2013 CHRT 33
Parties
Complainant: Geevarughese Johnson Itty; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Canada Border Services Agency
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Canadian Human Rights Act Complaint / Interim Ruling on Motion to Amend
Outcome
Motion to amend granted; Complaint amended to add section 10 systemic discrimination
Legal Topics
Discrimination, Systemic Discrimination, Amendment of Complaint, Procedural Fairness, Bona Fide Occupational Requirement
Source Language
English
Human Rights Employment Law Administrative Law Discrimination Systemic Discrimination Amendment of Complaint Procedural Fairness Bona Fide Occupational Requirement

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Geevarughese Johnson Itty

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Canada Border Services Agency

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Canadian Human Rights Act Complaint / Interim Ruling on Motion to Amend

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal should permit amendment to add section 10 systemic discrimination
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendment would constitute a new complaint circumventing Commission referral and thus exceed Tribunal jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether allowing the amendment would cause actual prejudice sufficient to affect fairness of hearing

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal allowed the amendment because the section 10 systemic claim arises from the same factual matrix as the section 7 personal discrimination claim, does not constitute a new unreferenced complaint, the Respondent had notice of the allegations and can defend them, and the asserted delay did not amount to actual prejudice that would impair a fair hearing.

Court Disposition

Motion to amend granted; Complaint amended to add section 10 systemic discrimination

Orders

  • Delete 'contrary to section 7 of the Canadian Human Rights Act' in last line of paragraph 1 of the Complaint and substitute 'contrary to sections 7 and 10 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.'
  • Schedule a Case Management Conference Call to set timelines for the Respondent to file an amended Statement of Particulars pursuant to Rule 6(1) and for the Complainant to file any Reply to the Amended Statement of Particulars