Ariaratnam v. Canadian Security Intelligence Service

Ariaratnam v. Canadian Security Intelligence Service

The Tribunal held that ss.45–46 CHRA prohibit the Commission, not the Tribunal, from proceeding while a NSIRA referral is outstanding; nothing in the CHRA 'recalls' a complaint from the Tribunal or bans Tribunal case management. Abeyance is discretionary and, on these facts, placing this complaint in abeyance is not in the interests of justice because the Tribunal can and should address the pending scope motion and use existing confidentiality and evidence mechanisms to protect national security interests.

Citation
2025 CHRT 105
Parties
Complainant: Kagusthan Ariaratnam; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Canadian Security Intelligence Service
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint (canadian Human Rights Act) / Ruling on Motion for Abeyance After S.45 NSIRA Referral (pre‑hearing Case Management)
Outcome
Motion to place the complaint in abeyance dismissed
Legal Topics
Section 45 CHRA, NSIRA Referral, Abeyance of Proceedings, Confidentiality Orders (s.52 Chra), Scope of Complaint
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Human Rights Law National Security Law Statutory Interpretation Section 45 CHRA NSIRA Referral Abeyance of Proceedings Confidentiality Orders (s.52 Chra) +1 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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kagusthan Ariaratnam

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Canadian Security Intelligence Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint (canadian Human Rights Act) / Ruling on Motion for Abeyance After S.45 NSIRA Referral (pre‑hearing Case Management)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What effect does a s.45 CHRA notice have on a complaint already before the Tribunal?
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to hold the matter in abeyance pending NSIRA and CHRC processes
  3. 3 How to balance national security protections with the CHRA objective of expeditious adjudication

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that ss.45–46 CHRA prohibit the Commission, not the Tribunal, from proceeding while a NSIRA referral is outstanding; nothing in the CHRA 'recalls' a complaint from the Tribunal or bans Tribunal case management. Abeyance is discretionary and, on these facts, placing this complaint in abeyance is not in the interests of justice because the Tribunal can and should address the pending scope motion and use existing confidentiality and evidence mechanisms to protect national security interests.

Court Disposition

Motion to place the complaint in abeyance dismissed

Orders

  • Motion dismissed
  • Proceed to address Respondent’s motion to restrict the scope of the complaint (scope motion)