Keith v. Canadian Armed Forces

Keith v. Canadian Armed Forces

Tribunal ordered broader and more liberal disclosure and particulars under Rule 6, including documents on use of civilian and non-civilian psychiatrists, history of refusals/accommodations, and RCPSC/CPSO certification procedures; found David Jacobs' report inadmissible because it primarily recites statutory/regulatory law and is within the Tribunal's knowledge (Mohan necessity not met); issued a subpoena duces tecum to Andrew Ross of Calian Ltd. for relevant documents; ordered more detailed witness statements and set conditions for Dr. Boddam's testimony scheduling.

Citation
2015 CHRT 4
Parties
Complainant: Arthur Lee Keith; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Canadian Armed Forces
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Discrimination in Employment / Interim Ruling on Pre Hearing Motions / Disclosure and Evidence Admissibility
Outcome
Interim orders granted in part for Complainant's disclosure requests; Complainant's expert report (David Jacobs) excluded; subpoena issued; procedural scheduling and witness disclosure orders made.
Legal Topics
Adverse Effect Discrimination, Bona Fide Occupational Requirement (bfor), Disclosure and Particulars, Expert Evidence Admissibility, Subpoena Duces Tecum, Accommodation
Source Language
English
Human Rights Employment Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Adverse Effect Discrimination Bona Fide Occupational Requirement (bfor) Disclosure and Particulars Expert Evidence Admissibility +2 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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arthur Lee Keith

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Canadian Armed Forces

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Discrimination in Employment / Interim Ruling on Pre Hearing Motions / Disclosure and Evidence Admissibility

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether RCPSC certification requirement constitutes a bona fide occupational requirement
  2. 2 Whether the Respondent provided adequate disclosure and particulars under Tribunal rules
  3. 3 Admissibility of expert evidence (David Jacobs) concerning regulatory framework and law

Ratio Decidendi

Tribunal ordered broader and more liberal disclosure and particulars under Rule 6, including documents on use of civilian and non-civilian psychiatrists, history of refusals/accommodations, and RCPSC/CPSO certification procedures; found David Jacobs' report inadmissible because it primarily recites statutory/regulatory law and is within the Tribunal's knowledge (Mohan necessity not met); issued a subpoena duces tecum to Andrew Ross of Calian Ltd. for relevant documents; ordered more detailed witness statements and set conditions for Dr. Boddam's testimony scheduling.

Court Disposition

Interim orders granted in part for Complainant's disclosure requests; Complainant's expert report (David Jacobs) excluded; subpoena issued; procedural scheduling and witness disclosure orders made.

Orders

  • Respondent to provide further and better particulars regarding use of civilian and non-civilian psychiatrists (including Calian, PS, Blue Cross psychiatrists)
  • Respondent to disclose CF's history of refusals based on CPS recognition without RCPSC prerequisite and any accommodations/exceptions for civilian specialists for relevant period