Montreuil v. Canadian Forces

Montreuil v. Canadian Forces

Applying the Sagaz two-part test, the Tribunal found the complainant failed to show the proffered material was newly discovered and would probably change the result; the material was primarily aimed at re‑attacking experts' credibility or was previously available or irrelevant, therefore the application to reopen was dismissed.

Citation
2009 CHRT 15
Parties
Complainant: Micheline Montreuil; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Canadian Forces
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Discrimination (canadian Human Rights Tribunal) / Interim Ruling on Application to Reopen Inquiry
Outcome
Application to reopen the inquiry dismissed
Legal Topics
Disability, Sex, Transgender Rights, Reopening Inquiry, Expert Evidence, Credibility, Damages
Source Language
English
Human Rights Administrative Law Employment Law Evidence Law Disability Sex Transgender Rights Reopening Inquiry +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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Micheline Montreuil

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Canadian Forces

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Discrimination (canadian Human Rights Tribunal) / Interim Ruling on Application to Reopen Inquiry

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inquiry should be reopened to admit new evidence
  2. 2 Whether the new evidence meets the two-part Sagaz test (probable impact on result; could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence)
  3. 3 Admissibility and relevance of international and extrajurisdictional material

Ratio Decidendi

Applying the Sagaz two-part test, the Tribunal found the complainant failed to show the proffered material was newly discovered and would probably change the result; the material was primarily aimed at re‑attacking experts' credibility or was previously available or irrelevant, therefore the application to reopen was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application to reopen the inquiry dismissed

Orders

  • Application to reopen the inquiry is dismissed
  • No reopening of the inquiry for the evidence claimed by the complainant