Pequeneza v. Canada Post Corporation

Pequeneza v. Canada Post Corporation

The Tribunal dismissed the Respondent's motion, adopted the Oster approach that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to apply or review the Commission's exercise of discretion under s.41(1)(e) (judicial review lies with the Federal Court), and declined to strike the earlier-period allegations; the Tribunal retained that it may consider prejudice affecting fairness but found the motion record insufficient to establish such prejudice.

Citation
2016 CHRT 21
Parties
Complainant: Michael Pequeneza; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Canada Post Corporation
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint Disability Discrimination / Ruling on Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Portions of Complaint for Non Compliance With S.41(1)(e)
Outcome
Respondent's motion dismissed
Legal Topics
Timeliness Under S.41(1)(e), Jurisdiction of the Tribunal, Judicial Review, Prejudice and Fairness of Hearing
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Administrative Law Employment Law Timeliness Under S.41(1)(e) Jurisdiction of the Tribunal Judicial Review Prejudice and Fairness of Hearing

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Pequeneza

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Canada Post Corporation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint Disability Discrimination / Ruling on Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Portions of Complaint for Non Compliance With S.41(1)(e)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to apply or review the Commission's exercise of discretion under s.41(1)(e) of the CHRA
  2. 2 Whether portions of the complaint alleging acts more than one year before filing must be dismissed for non-compliance with s.41(1)(e)
  3. 3 Whether delay has caused prejudice sufficient to deny the Respondent a fair hearing

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal dismissed the Respondent's motion, adopted the Oster approach that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to apply or review the Commission's exercise of discretion under s.41(1)(e) (judicial review lies with the Federal Court), and declined to strike the earlier-period allegations; the Tribunal retained that it may consider prejudice affecting fairness but found the motion record insufficient to establish such prejudice.

Court Disposition

Respondent's motion dismissed

Orders

  • Respondent's motion to dismiss portions of the complaint for non-compliance with s.41(1)(e) is dismissed.