Constantinescu v. Correctional Service Canada

Constantinescu v. Correctional Service Canada

The motion was dismissed as an abuse of process because it sought to relitigate and reopen numerous interlocutory disclosure decisions without presenting new facts or exceptional circumstances, requested orders the Tribunal lacks statutory power to grant (search and seizure, compelled expert analysis), attempted to circumvent mediation privilege, and formed part of vexatious, duplicative and delaying tactics that threaten the fair and efficient administration of the Tribunal’s process.

Citation
2019 CHRT 49
Parties
Complainant: Cecilia Constantinescu; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Correctional Service Canada
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint Under the Canadian Human Rights Act / Motion to Amend Interlocutory Disclosure Decisions; Ongoing Disclosure Stage
Outcome
Complainant's motion dismissed in its entirety as an abuse of process; formal warning issued regarding vexatious conduct
Legal Topics
Disclosure, Abuse of Process, Mediation Privilege, Search and Seizure, Expert Evidence, Vexatious Litigant
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Administrative Law Tribunal Procedure Disclosure Abuse of Process Mediation Privilege Search and Seizure Expert Evidence +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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cecilia Constantinescu

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Correctional Service Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint Under the Canadian Human Rights Act / Motion to Amend Interlocutory Disclosure Decisions; Ongoing Disclosure Stage

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Complainant’s motion to amend 17 interlocutory disclosure decisions is an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal has power to order search and seizure of respondent premises
  3. 3 Whether mediation communications are privileged and protected from disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The motion was dismissed as an abuse of process because it sought to relitigate and reopen numerous interlocutory disclosure decisions without presenting new facts or exceptional circumstances, requested orders the Tribunal lacks statutory power to grant (search and seizure, compelled expert analysis), attempted to circumvent mediation privilege, and formed part of vexatious, duplicative and delaying tactics that threaten the fair and efficient administration of the Tribunal’s process.

Court Disposition

Complainant's motion dismissed in its entirety as an abuse of process; formal warning issued regarding vexatious conduct

Orders

  • Motion to amend 17 interlocutory disclosure decisions dismissed in its entirety
  • Complainant formally warned to correct vexatious, abusive and disrespectful behaviour and to comply with Tribunal directions and decorum