Banda v. Correctional Service Canada

Banda v. Correctional Service Canada

The Tribunal allowed the limited amendment to the complainant's SOP because the respondent and Commission consented and no prejudice would result; the Tribunal refused to strike the respondent's allegations about the firearm because respondents may plead material facts to defend against complaints, particulars are not evidence, the Commission's referral does not restrict the respondent's pleadings, and striking would unduly limit the respondent's right to a defence absent the clearest of cases.

Citation
2021 CHRT 19
Parties
Complainant: Simon Banda; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Correctional Service Canada
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Discrimination Complaint / Interim Ruling on Motions
Outcome
Complainant's amendment allowed in part; request to strike respondent's SOP dismissed
Legal Topics
Race Discrimination, Colour, National or Ethnic Origin, Procedural Fairness, Amendment of Pleadings, Scope of Pleadings, Disclosure
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Administrative Law Employment/correctional Service Law Race Discrimination Colour National or Ethnic Origin Procedural Fairness Amendment of Pleadings +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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simon Banda

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Correctional Service Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Discrimination Complaint / Interim Ruling on Motions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to allow amendment of the Statement of Particulars to add allegation of denial of medical leave as an instance of differential treatment
  2. 2 Whether to strike portions of respondent's Statement of Particulars alleging the complainant pointed a shotgun at a staff member
  3. 3 Whether the Commission's investigation referral limits the matters a respondent may raise before the Tribunal

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal allowed the limited amendment to the complainant's SOP because the respondent and Commission consented and no prejudice would result; the Tribunal refused to strike the respondent's allegations about the firearm because respondents may plead material facts to defend against complaints, particulars are not evidence, the Commission's referral does not restrict the respondent's pleadings, and striking would unduly limit the respondent's right to a defence absent the clearest of cases.

Court Disposition

Complainant's amendment allowed in part; request to strike respondent's SOP dismissed

Orders

  • Complainant allowed to amend his Statement of Particulars to include the specific allegation regarding denial of sick leave; amended SOP to be provided within 7 calendar days of this ruling
  • If respondent intends to file an amended Statement of Particulars it may do so no later than 7 calendar days following receipt of the complainant's amended SOP