Ariaratnam v. Canadian Security Intelligence Service

Ariaratnam v. Canadian Security Intelligence Service

The Tribunal allowed inclusion of disability (or perceived disability), national and ethnic origin, race and religion as grounds, but excluded all allegations predating 2016 because those allegations were not part of the complaint referred by the Commission; the Complainant is ordered to file a new SOP limited to the 2016 site access clearance under s.5 of the CHRA and to revise disclosures and witness lists in accordance with the ruling.

Citation
2026 CHRT 3
Parties
Complainant: Kagusthan Ariaratnam; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Canadian Security Intelligence Service
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 January 2026
Procedural Posture
CHRA Complaint / Ruling on Scope and SOP Amendment Motion
Outcome
Motion allowed in part; SOP partially restricted and must be revised; pre-2016 allegations excluded except as contextual background.
Legal Topics
Scope of Complaint, Referral to Tribunal, Grounds of Discrimination, Intersectionality, Procedural Fairness, Case Management
Source Language
English
Human Rights Administrative Law Employment Law National Security Law Tribunal Procedure Scope of Complaint Referral to Tribunal Grounds of Discrimination +3 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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kagusthan Ariaratnam

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Canadian Security Intelligence Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

CHRA Complaint / Ruling on Scope and SOP Amendment Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tribunal has jurisdiction over allegations predating 2016
  2. 2 Whether additional grounds of discrimination can be pleaded in the SOP
  3. 3 Whether the complainant must file a revised SOP limited to the 2016 site access clearance under s.5 CHRA

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal allowed inclusion of disability (or perceived disability), national and ethnic origin, race and religion as grounds, but excluded all allegations predating 2016 because those allegations were not part of the complaint referred by the Commission; the Complainant is ordered to file a new SOP limited to the 2016 site access clearance under s.5 of the CHRA and to revise disclosures and witness lists in accordance with the ruling.

Court Disposition

Motion allowed in part; SOP partially restricted and must be revised; pre-2016 allegations excluded except as contextual background.

Orders

  • Complainant must file a new SOP, along with revised disclosure and witness lists, within four (4) weeks from the date this ruling is communicated to the parties.
  • CSIS's SOP is due seven (7) weeks from the date of this ruling.