Johnston v. Canadian Armed Forces

Johnston v. Canadian Armed Forces

The Tribunal dismissed the complaint because the complainant repeatedly and without reasonable excuse failed to comply with peremptory timelines and directions, rendering the case static for over two years and amounting to an abuse of the Tribunal's process; dismissal was therefore justified under established tests...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2007 CHRT 42
Parties
Complainant: Sheldon W. Johnston; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Canadian Armed Forces
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Complaint Under the Canadian Human Rights Act / Ruling on Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution (final Disposition)
Outcome
Respondent's motion granted; complaint dismissed for want of prosecution
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Abuse of Process, Delay and Prejudice, Case Management and Mediation
Source Language
english
Administrative Law Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Tribunal Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Abuse of Process Delay and Prejudice Case Management and Mediation

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sheldon W. Johnston

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Canadian Armed Forces

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Complaint Under the Canadian Human Rights Act / Ruling on Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution (final Disposition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the complaint should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to delay and non‑compliance with tribunal directions
  2. 2 Whether the delay was inordinate and inexcusable
  3. 3 Whether the complainant's conduct amounted to an abuse of the Tribunal's process

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal dismissed the complaint because the complainant repeatedly and without reasonable excuse failed to comply with peremptory timelines and directions, rendering the case static for over two years and amounting to an abuse of the Tribunal's process; dismissal was therefore justified under established tests and authorities on delay and abuse of process (Seitz, Grovit, Nichols).

Court Disposition

Respondent's motion granted; complaint dismissed for want of prosecution

Orders

  • Respondent's motion to dismiss for want of prosecution is granted
  • The complaint is dismissed