Valenti v. Canadian Pacific Railway

Valenti v. Canadian Pacific Railway

Apply Rule 6's arguable relevance standard to each disputed request; where respondent declared it had disclosed all relevant non‑privileged documents and there was no evidence of bad faith or lack of cooperation, the Tribunal accepts that declaration and will not order further disclosure; where a specific request...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2017 CHRT 25
Parties
Complainant: Nicole Grace Valenti; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Canadian Pacific Railway
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint / Interim Ruling on Disclosure Motion
Outcome
Partial disclosure ordered; majority of disputed requests denied for lack of arguable relevance or as fishing expeditions
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Document Disclosure, Arguable Relevance, Third Party Records, Procedural Disclosure Obligations
Source Language
english
Human Rights Law Administrative Law Employment Law Evidence and Procedure Disability Discrimination Document Disclosure Arguable Relevance Third Party Records +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicole Grace Valenti

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Canadian Pacific Railway

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint / Interim Ruling on Disclosure Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Respondent must disclose additional documents under Tribunal Rule 6
  2. 2 Application of the "arguable relevance" standard to each document request
  3. 3 Whether Respondent acted in bad faith or failed to cooperate in disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

Apply Rule 6's arguable relevance standard to each disputed request; where respondent declared it had disclosed all relevant non‑privileged documents and there was no evidence of bad faith or lack of cooperation, the Tribunal accepts that declaration and will not order further disclosure; where a specific request meets the arguable relevance threshold (C119: Benefit Team Agreement with Manulife and related policy/procedure), disclosure is ordered. Broad, non‑specific requests and requests aimed at establishing state of mind via peripheral records (cell phone, vehicle records) were denied as speculative or not arguably relevant to issues before the Tribunal.

Court Disposition

Partial disclosure ordered; majority of disputed requests denied for lack of arguable relevance or as fishing expeditions

Orders

  • Respondent shall disclose documents responsive to request C119 (CPR's Benefit Team Agreement with Manulife and policy and procedure for non-unionized benefits) to the parties by August 18, 2017.