Constantinescu v. Correctional Service Canada

Constantinescu v. Correctional Service Canada

Applying the arguable relevance standard and the Tribunal's prior scope rulings the Member identified specific passages in Exhibits 91 and 92 that bear on the complainant's allegations (relationship between recruits and Ouellet, fees charged, reimbursements and related chronology) and ordered those passages unredacted; material unrelated to the complaint or addressing investigatory findings, non‑party details or matters outside Tribunal jurisdiction remains redacted.

Citation
2020 CHRT 8
Parties
Complainant: Cecilia Constantinescu; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Correctional Service Canada
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Discrimination Complaint / Interim Disclosure Ruling
Outcome
Partial disclosure ordered: specified passages in Exhibits 91 and 92 to be unredacted and produced to parties by a set deadline; remaining redactions upheld.
Legal Topics
Disclosure, Relevance, Document Redaction, Scope of Complaint, Investigations
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Administrative Law Procedural Law Disclosure Relevance Document Redaction Scope of Complaint Investigations

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cecilia Constantinescu

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Correctional Service Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Discrimination Complaint / Interim Disclosure Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether redacted portions of investigators' report and notes (Exhibits 91 and 92) are arguably relevant to the complainant's CHRT proceeding
  2. 2 Whether disclosure obligations require unredacting specific passages given the Tribunal's prior scope rulings
  3. 3 Balancing disclosure of relevant evidence against exclusion of investigatory material and non‑party information

Ratio Decidendi

Applying the arguable relevance standard and the Tribunal's prior scope rulings the Member identified specific passages in Exhibits 91 and 92 that bear on the complainant's allegations (relationship between recruits and Ouellet, fees charged, reimbursements and related chronology) and ordered those passages unredacted; material unrelated to the complaint or addressing investigatory findings, non‑party details or matters outside Tribunal jurisdiction remains redacted.

Court Disposition

Partial disclosure ordered: specified passages in Exhibits 91 and 92 to be unredacted and produced to parties by a set deadline; remaining redactions upheld.

Orders

  • Send the amended unredacted portions to the other parties in accordance with Tribunal orders no later than May 8, 2020