Montreuil v. Canadian Forces

Montreuil v. Canadian Forces

The Tribunal held that the respondent's production of voluminous, largely new documents shortly before the hearing prejudiced the complainant and the Commission; internet availability does not substitute for affirmative disclosure and experts require timely access to materials; accordingly, a partial adjournment and specific disclosure deadlines were ordered to remedy the prejudice.

Citation
2006 CHRT 57
Parties
Complainant: Micheline Montreuil; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Canadian Forces
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint / Motion to Adjourn Prior to Merits Hearing
Outcome
Adjournment allowed in part; hearing of witnesses deferred to December 4, 2006
Legal Topics
Disclosure, Adjournment, Expert Evidence, Document Production, Internet Disclosure
Source Language
English
Human Rights Administrative Law Evidence and Disclosure Disclosure Adjournment Expert Evidence Document Production Internet Disclosure

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 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 Complaint / Motion to Adjourn Prior to Merits Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether disclosure of voluminous documents on October 11, 2006 constituted late disclosure and prejudiced the complainant and Commission
  2. 2 Whether documents posted on a party's internet site amount to implicit disclosure to the opposing party
  3. 3 Whether experts must be assumed to know all relevant scientific literature or must be provided materials in advance

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that the respondent's production of voluminous, largely new documents shortly before the hearing prejudiced the complainant and the Commission; internet availability does not substitute for affirmative disclosure and experts require timely access to materials; accordingly, a partial adjournment and specific disclosure deadlines were ordered to remedy the prejudice.

Court Disposition

Adjournment allowed in part; hearing of witnesses deferred to December 4, 2006

Orders

  • Hearing of witnesses deferred to December 4, 2006, when the complainant will begin evidence
  • Respondent shall send the complainant and the Commission any additions to its expert reports on or before November 10, 2006