Constantinescu v. Correctional Service Canada

Constantinescu v. Correctional Service Canada

Tribunal applied the arguable relevance standard and privacy/privilege limits: suspended requests touching investigators' report pending privilege determination; denied broad requests for disclosure of numerous workplace harassment files and Presidia reports as speculative, not sufficiently connected to the specific complaint and prejudicial; ordered the Respondent to provide both redacted and non‑redacted versions of item #19 to the Tribunal for in‑camera relevance review; dismissed the screenshot information request as informational for hearing witnesses; ordered disclosure of recruits' trainer logbooks with personal identifiers redacted as arguably relevant to alleged adverse...

Citation
2020 CHRT 4
Parties
Complainant: Cecilia Constantinescu; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Correctional Service Canada
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Canadian Human Rights Act Complaint / Ruling on Disclosure Motions
Outcome
Partial grant, partial denial and suspension of disclosure applications with specific orders (in‑camera review, redaction limits and production deadlines).
Legal Topics
Disclosure, Privilege, Workplace Harassment, Sexual Harassment, Access to Information, Similar Fact Evidence
Source Language
English
Human Rights Employment Law Administrative Law Labour Relations Disclosure Privilege Workplace Harassment Sexual Harassment +2 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 12 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

Canadian Human Rights Act Complaint / Ruling on Disclosure Motions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether requested documents are arguably relevant and must be disclosed
  2. 2 Whether documents are protected by privilege
  3. 3 Whether disclosure would be unduly prejudicial or cause disproportionate delay

Ratio Decidendi

Tribunal applied the arguable relevance standard and privacy/privilege limits: suspended requests touching investigators' report pending privilege determination; denied broad requests for disclosure of numerous workplace harassment files and Presidia reports as speculative, not sufficiently connected to the specific complaint and prejudicial; ordered the Respondent to provide both redacted and non‑redacted versions of item #19 to the Tribunal for in‑camera relevance review; dismissed the screenshot information request as informational for hearing witnesses; ordered disclosure of recruits' trainer logbooks with personal identifiers redacted as arguably relevant to alleged adverse...

Court Disposition

Partial grant, partial denial and suspension of disclosure applications with specific orders (in‑camera review, redaction limits and production deadlines).

Orders

  • SUSPENDS the request for disclosure of documents relating to the investigators Poirier and Anctil pending privilege debates
  • DENIES the request for disclosure of documents relating to the 65 workplace harassment investigations between 2016 and 2018