Parent v. Canadian Forces

Parent v. Canadian Forces

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to allow the amendment because the new allegations arose from the same factual matrix as the original complaint, the Commission had been informed of the discharge, it was not plain and obvious the allegations could not succeed, and the respondent failed to demonstrate real and significant prejudice or that the amendment constituted a time-barred new complaint; accordingly the complaint was amended.

Citation
2005 CHRT 37
Parties
Complainant: Alain Parent; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Canadian Forces
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Canadian Human Rights Act Complaint / Motion to Amend Complaint After Referral to Tribunal (pre Hearing Case Management)
Outcome
Motion granted; complaint amended
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Retaliation/reprisal, Amendment of Complaint, Tribunal Procedure, Prescription/time Limits
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Employment Law Administrative Law Disability Discrimination Retaliation/reprisal Amendment of Complaint Tribunal Procedure Prescription/time Limits

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alain Parent

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Canadian Forces

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Canadian Human Rights Act Complaint / Motion to Amend Complaint After Referral to Tribunal (pre Hearing Case Management)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal should permit amendment of the complaint to add allegations that discharge was discriminatory on the basis of disability
  2. 2 Whether the amendment is time-barred or prescribed under s.41(1)(e) of the Canadian Human Rights Act
  3. 3 Whether the respondent would suffer real and significant prejudice if amendment allowed

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to allow the amendment because the new allegations arose from the same factual matrix as the original complaint, the Commission had been informed of the discharge, it was not plain and obvious the allegations could not succeed, and the respondent failed to demonstrate real and significant prejudice or that the amendment constituted a time-barred new complaint; accordingly the complaint was amended.

Court Disposition

Motion granted; complaint amended

Orders

  • Complaint amended to add the following: (1) The Complainant, Alain Parent, had an employment contract with the Canadian Forces that extended until 2019.
  • (2) The Complainant considers his discharge from the Canadian Forces to be a discriminatory act based on his state of health, in contravention of s.7, and an act of retaliation, in contravention of s.14.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.