A.B. and Gracie v Correctional Service Canada

A.B. and Gracie v Correctional Service Canada

The Tribunal denied CSC's motion to exclude the proposed evidence because the witnesses' testimony is arguably relevant and proportionate to the complaints (including context on CRI, program referral overrides, and ICPO workloads), the Complainants narrowed scope and documents to prevent undue prejudice, and limits can be imposed during testimony; however, questioning and documents are restricted to avoid detailed adjudication of the witnesses' personal employment disputes, and witnesses must avoid offering specialized opinions beyond their experience.

Citation
2025 CHRT 99
Parties
Complainant: A.B.; Complainant: Daniel Gracie; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Interested Party: Aboriginal Legal Services; Respondent: Correctional Service Canada
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint (canadian Human Rights Tribunal) / Ruling on Motion to Exclude Witness Evidence (pre Hearing Evidentiary Motion)
Outcome
Motion denied; proposed evidence of Melissa Green and Kristie Scott admitted subject to strict scope limitations and document exclusions
Legal Topics
Discrimination, Access to Culturally Appropriate Programs, Evidence Admissibility, Procedural Fairness, Systemic Discrimination, Risk Assessment Tools
Source Language
English
Human Rights Indigenous Rights Administrative Law Corrections Discrimination Access to Culturally Appropriate Programs Evidence Admissibility Procedural Fairness +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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A.B.

Complainant

Daniel Gracie

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Aboriginal Legal Services

Interested Party

Correctional Service Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint (canadian Human Rights Tribunal) / Ruling on Motion to Exclude Witness Evidence (pre Hearing Evidentiary Motion)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility of witness evidence from CSC employees
  2. 2 Relevance of witnesses' personal employment disputes to discrimination complaints
  3. 3 Relevance of CSC risk assessment tool (CRI) and program referral overrides to systemic Indigenous programming needs

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal denied CSC's motion to exclude the proposed evidence because the witnesses' testimony is arguably relevant and proportionate to the complaints (including context on CRI, program referral overrides, and ICPO workloads), the Complainants narrowed scope and documents to prevent undue prejudice, and limits can be imposed during testimony; however, questioning and documents are restricted to avoid detailed adjudication of the witnesses' personal employment disputes, and witnesses must avoid offering specialized opinions beyond their experience.

Court Disposition

Motion denied; proposed evidence of Melissa Green and Kristie Scott admitted subject to strict scope limitations and document exclusions

Orders

  • Refrain from asking Ms. Green, as much as reasonably possible, about the nature and status of her employment disputes and public integrity complaints against CSC
  • Refrain from asking Ms. Green questions regarding (i) her performance reviews; (ii) her harassment grievances; (iii) the systemic findings of independent investigations into these grievances; and (iv) CSC's response to recommendations from those investigative reports