Montreuil v. Canadian Forces

Montreuil v. Canadian Forces

By comparing the respondent's February/April 2006 disclosures (Exhibit I-17 and I-18) with Exhibit I-2, the Tribunal found that all documents in pages 12 to 289 of Exhibit I-2 except pages 190 to 197 were previously disclosed and therefore could be submitted to the expert for his report.

Citation
2007 CHRT 55
Parties
Complainant: Micheline Montreuil; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Canadian Forces
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Complaint / Ruling on Disclosure
Outcome
Tribunal determines that pages 12 to 289 of Exhibit I-2, except pages 190 to 197 (the complainant's CV), were disclosed to the Commission and complainant in February and April 2006 and could be submitted to the expert.
Legal Topics
Disclosure, Expert Evidence, Document Production, Procedural Ruling
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Administrative Law Disclosure Expert Evidence Document Production Procedural Ruling

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Micheline Montreuil

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Canadian Forces

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Complaint / Ruling on Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the documents contained in Exhibit I-2 had been disclosed to the Commission and complainant in February and April 2006
  2. 2 Whether the documents available to Dr. Beltrami for preparation of his expert report included the documents in Exhibit I-2

Ratio Decidendi

By comparing the respondent's February/April 2006 disclosures (Exhibit I-17 and I-18) with Exhibit I-2, the Tribunal found that all documents in pages 12 to 289 of Exhibit I-2 except pages 190 to 197 were previously disclosed and therefore could be submitted to the expert for his report.

Court Disposition

Tribunal determines that pages 12 to 289 of Exhibit I-2, except pages 190 to 197 (the complainant's CV), were disclosed to the Commission and complainant in February and April 2006 and could be submitted to the expert.

Orders

  • Determination that documents on pages 12-289 of Exhibit I-2, except pages 190-197, were disclosed in February and April 2006 and were available to Dr. Beltrami for preparing his expert report.