Montreuil v. Canadian Forces

Montreuil v. Canadian Forces

The motion to amend the hearing schedule was denied because the schedule had been set with party consent, changing it at this late stage would cause significant logistical disruption and prejudice to the Respondent, the complainant presented no compelling evidence she would be forced to resign, and the proposed alternatives were not reasonable or viable given witness availability and Tribunal scheduling obligations.

Citation
2007 CHRT 8
Parties
Complainant: Micheline Montreuil; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Canadian Forces
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint / Interim Ruling on Scheduling Motion
Outcome
Motion to amend hearing schedule denied.
Legal Topics
Disability, Sex, Accommodation, Hearing Schedule, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
English
Human Rights Employment Administrative Law Disability Sex Accommodation Hearing Schedule Procedural Fairness

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Micheline Montreuil

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Canadian Forces

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint / Interim Ruling on Scheduling Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal should amend an existing hearing schedule to accommodate the complainant's employment and other activities
  2. 2 Extent and application of the duty to accommodate in tribunal proceedings
  3. 3 Whether changing the schedule at this late stage would prejudice the respondent and impair fair hearing management

Ratio Decidendi

The motion to amend the hearing schedule was denied because the schedule had been set with party consent, changing it at this late stage would cause significant logistical disruption and prejudice to the Respondent, the complainant presented no compelling evidence she would be forced to resign, and the proposed alternatives were not reasonable or viable given witness availability and Tribunal scheduling obligations.

Court Disposition

Motion to amend hearing schedule denied.

Orders

  • Complainant's motion to amend the existing hearing schedule is denied.
  • Hearing to resume as scheduled on April 30, 2006 and to proceed according to the existing hearing schedule previously sent to the parties.