Jorge v. Canada Post Corporation

Jorge v. Canada Post Corporation

The Tribunal granted the Complainant leave to amend because the proposed amendments bore a strong nexus to the original complaint, the Respondent failed to demonstrate real and significant prejudice from delay or evidence loss, and the Commission had referred the complaint in its entirety for inquiry; the Respondent’s cross-motion to limit the scope based on the Commissioners’ brief reasons and the investigator’s report was denied; allegations predating the stated start date were not struck as a group, but one specific paragraph (Feb 17–27, 2012) was confined to background only.

Citation
2021 CHRT 25
Parties
Complainant: Noella Jorge; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Canada Post Corporation
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Discrimination Complaint (canadian Human Rights Act) / Pre Hearing Motions (amendment and Scope Ruling)
Outcome
Complainant's motion to amend granted; Respondent's cross-motion to limit scope denied; related requests adjourned to hearing; specified Statement of Particulars paragraphs not struck though one paragraph limited to background.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Complaint, Scope of Commission Referral, Retaliation, Accommodation (disability and Family Status), Procedural Fairness, Jurisdictional Overlap (wsib)
Source Language
English
Human Rights Administrative Law Employment Law Amendment of Complaint Scope of Commission Referral Retaliation Accommodation (disability and Family Status) Procedural Fairness +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 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Noella Jorge

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Canada Post Corporation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Discrimination Complaint (canadian Human Rights Act) / Pre Hearing Motions (amendment and Scope Ruling)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal should permit the Complainant to amend her original complaint to incorporate particulars in the Statement of Particulars
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal should limit the scope of the complaint based on the Commission/Commissioners’ referral decision
  3. 3 Whether certain allegations in the Statement of Particulars that pre-date the stated start date of discrimination should be struck

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal granted the Complainant leave to amend because the proposed amendments bore a strong nexus to the original complaint, the Respondent failed to demonstrate real and significant prejudice from delay or evidence loss, and the Commission had referred the complaint in its entirety for inquiry; the Respondent’s cross-motion to limit the scope based on the Commissioners’ brief reasons and the investigator’s report was denied; allegations predating the stated start date were not struck as a group, but one specific paragraph (Feb 17–27, 2012) was confined to background only.

Court Disposition

Complainant's motion to amend granted; Respondent's cross-motion to limit scope denied; related requests adjourned to hearing; specified Statement of Particulars paragraphs not struck though one paragraph limited to background.

Orders

  • Complainant permitted to amend her complaint in accordance with Schedule B to her motion by August 30, 2021
  • Respondent’s request to limit the scope of the complaint is denied