Hughes v. Canada Border Services Agency

Hughes v. Canada Border Services Agency

Reply evidence was permitted in part because certain handwritten Public Service Commission notes were produced late and ought to have been disclosed before the complainant concluded his evidence; reply evidence was allowed only on issues specifically identified in the Notice of Motion and limited to direct...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2017 CHRT 10
Parties
Complainant: Chris Hughes; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Canada Border Services Agency
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal / Ruling on Motion for Reply Evidence
Outcome
Motion granted in part and denied in part
Legal Topics
Reply Evidence, Disclosure, Procedural Fairness, Public Service Commission Proceedings, Age Discrimination
Source Language
english
Human Rights Law Administrative Law Employment Law Reply Evidence Disclosure Procedural Fairness Public Service Commission Proceedings Age Discrimination

Source-derived case record

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 8 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 Tribunal / Ruling on Motion for Reply Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the complainant may call reply evidence after closing his case
  2. 2 Admissibility and fairness implications of late-produced Public Service Commission handwritten notes
  3. 3 Standard and limits for granting reply evidence in tribunal proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

Reply evidence was permitted in part because certain handwritten Public Service Commission notes were produced late and ought to have been disclosed before the complainant concluded his evidence; reply evidence was allowed only on issues specifically identified in the Notice of Motion and limited to direct questioning on those points. Reply evidence was denied where the bench found the standard was not met because the matters were previously covered in direct or cross-examination or were not new or unanticipated.

Court Disposition

Motion granted in part and denied in part

Orders

  • Complainant allowed to give reply evidence concerning matters raised by the late-produced Public Service Commission handwritten notes dated October 12, 2005 and February 15, 2006 and additional notes produced October 18, 2016
  • Examination of the complainant on allowed reply matters shall be by direct questions only and limited to specific points identified in the Notice of Motion; no expansion of theories or lengthy new evidence