Sargeant v. Correctional Service Canada

Sargeant v. Correctional Service Canada

Denied production of grievance documents naming Sean Bell because they post-date the allegations in the referred complaints, are not raised in these complaints, have minimal probative value and would risk prejudicial sidetracking; permitted complainant's treating counsellor (Leita McInnis) to testify without complying with Rule 22 but confined testimony to observations and opinions formed in treatment, required an amended witness statement and production of related clinical records subject to implied undertaking; sustained Respondent's objection to calling Sheraz Kausar absent agreement or production of any investigative reports because s.189 CCRA renders Correctional Investigator persons...

Citation
2026 CHRT 10
Parties
Complainant: John Sargeant; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Correctional Service Canada
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Discrimination (chra Referral) / Case Management / Pre Hearing Ruling
Outcome
Partial: requests were granted in part and denied in part as specified; case management orders issued to govern witness testimony, disclosure, and pre-hearing admissibility submissions.
Legal Topics
Race Discrimination, Colour, National or Ethnic Origin, Sex, Evidence, Admissibility, Witness Objections, Disclosure
Source Language
English
Human Rights Administrative Law Corrections Race Discrimination Colour National or Ethnic Origin Sex Evidence +3 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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Sargeant

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Correctional Service Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Discrimination (chra Referral) / Case Management / Pre Hearing Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to order production of grievance documents naming Correctional Officer Sean Bell
  2. 2 Whether the complainant's counsellor must comply with Rule 22 expert witness requirements
  3. 3 Whether Sheraz Kausar (Office of the Correctional Investigator) is compellable and/or whether investigative reports must be produced

Ratio Decidendi

Denied production of grievance documents naming Sean Bell because they post-date the allegations in the referred complaints, are not raised in these complaints, have minimal probative value and would risk prejudicial sidetracking; permitted complainant's treating counsellor (Leita McInnis) to testify without complying with Rule 22 but confined testimony to observations and opinions formed in treatment, required an amended witness statement and production of related clinical records subject to implied undertaking; sustained Respondent's objection to calling Sheraz Kausar absent agreement or production of any investigative reports because s.189 CCRA renders Correctional Investigator persons...

Court Disposition

Partial: requests were granted in part and denied in part as specified; case management orders issued to govern witness testimony, disclosure, and pre-hearing admissibility submissions.

Orders

  • Deny production of grievance documents naming Correctional Officer Sean Bell
  • Deny request that counsellor (Leita McInnis) be required to comply with Rule 22; require production of any materials related to her evidence including clinical records relating to health effects alleged