Constantinescu v. Correctional Service Canada

Constantinescu v. Correctional Service Canada

Applying the arguable relevance standard, the Tribunal found pages 1–33 and pages 36–41 of Brunelle's notes are not arguably relevant to Constantinescu's complaint and upheld those redactions; however, the Tribunal ordered disclosure of the titles on pages 34 and 35 ("Daniel Parent (2) 14.11.14" and "Parent") because the titles provide contextual relevance to disclosed content, and ordered the respondent to remove those redactions and re-serve the amended documents by October 16, 2020.

Citation
2020 CHRT 30
Parties
Complainant: Cecilia Constantinescu; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Correctional Service Canada
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint / Interim Ruling on Disclosure/redaction
Outcome
Partial disclosure ordered; most redactions maintained except specific titles on pages 34 and 35 to be disclosed
Legal Topics
Disclosure, Document Redaction, Investigative Notes, Procedural Fairness, National or Ethnic Origin, Sex
Source Language
English
Human Rights Discrimination Law Administrative Law Disclosure Document Redaction Investigative Notes Procedural Fairness National or Ethnic Origin +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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cecilia Constantinescu

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Correctional Service Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint / Interim Ruling on Disclosure/redaction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether redacted portions of investigators' handwritten notes are arguably relevant and must be disclosed
  2. 2 Whether missing pages supplied after an earlier ruling change disclosure analysis
  3. 3 Standards and scope of disclosure at the production stage versus admissibility

Ratio Decidendi

Applying the arguable relevance standard, the Tribunal found pages 1–33 and pages 36–41 of Brunelle's notes are not arguably relevant to Constantinescu's complaint and upheld those redactions; however, the Tribunal ordered disclosure of the titles on pages 34 and 35 ("Daniel Parent (2) 14.11.14" and "Parent") because the titles provide contextual relevance to disclosed content, and ordered the respondent to remove those redactions and re-serve the amended documents by October 16, 2020.

Court Disposition

Partial disclosure ordered; most redactions maintained except specific titles on pages 34 and 35 to be disclosed

Orders

  • Respondent must remove redaction of the titles on pages 34 and 35: "Daniel Parent (2) 14.11.14" and "Parent"
  • Respondent to send the amended documents to the other parties by October 16, 2020