T.P. v. Canadian Armed Forces

T.P. v. Canadian Armed Forces

The Tribunal found the Draft DAOD documents are arguably relevant to the CAF’s pleaded BFOR defence and to potential remedies; the public interest in disclosure for a fair adjudication outweighs the CAF’s generalized class claim of public interest immunity; production is ordered subject only to valid claims of solicitor‑client privilege and the CAF must particularize such claims by delivering updated privilege lists.

Citation
2019 CHRT 14
Parties
Complainant: T.P.; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Canadian Armed Forces
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint Under the Canadian Human Rights Act / Pre‑hearing Motion — Ruling on Production of Draft DAOD Documents
Outcome
Commission’s revised motion allowed; production ordered subject to solicitor‑client privilege
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Accommodation, Bona Fide Occupational Requirement (bfor), Document Production/disclosure, Solicitor‑client Privilege, Public Interest/public Interest Immunity, Meiorin BFOR Test
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Administrative Law Employment Law Evidence and Privilege Disability Discrimination Accommodation Bona Fide Occupational Requirement (bfor) Document Production/disclosure +3 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

T.P.

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Canadian Armed Forces

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint Under the Canadian Human Rights Act / Pre‑hearing Motion — Ruling on Production of Draft DAOD Documents

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Draft DAOD documents are arguably relevant to the proceedings and a potential BFOR defence and remedies
  2. 2 Whether any of the requested documents are protected by solicitor‑client privilege
  3. 3 Whether the requested documents are protected by common law public interest immunity

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found the Draft DAOD documents are arguably relevant to the CAF’s pleaded BFOR defence and to potential remedies; the public interest in disclosure for a fair adjudication outweighs the CAF’s generalized class claim of public interest immunity; production is ordered subject only to valid claims of solicitor‑client privilege and the CAF must particularize such claims by delivering updated privilege lists.

Court Disposition

Commission’s revised motion allowed; production ordered subject to solicitor‑client privilege

Orders

  • CAF must deliver to the Tribunal and parties updated lists of all arguably relevant documents and identify documents claimed in whole or in part as subject to solicitor‑client privilege.
  • Subject only to solicitor‑client privilege, CAF must immediately produce all documents that led to the creation of the Draft DAOD and that record its current status (including but not limited to research papers, policy proposals, briefing notes, previous drafts, records of discussions or decisions, committee...