Kim v. Correctional Service Canada

Kim v. Correctional Service Canada

The complaint is dismissed because the Tribunal found no evidence the psychologist knew of the Commission-filed human rights complaints or that those complaints were factors in her report; the report's references to 'complaints and grievances' plainly referred to numerous internal memos and observed patterns of dissatisfaction relevant to clinical risk assessment, and the complainant's perception that those references were retaliation for his human rights filings was not objectively reasonable.

Citation
2025 CHRT 39
Parties
Complainant: Frank Kim; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Correctional Service Canada
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint (retaliation Under S.14.1 Chra) / Tribunal Inquiry and Decision
Outcome
Complaint dismissed
Legal Topics
Retaliation, Disability Discrimination, Religion Discrimination, Psychological Assessment, File Correction, Parole Decision
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Administrative Law Corrections/parole Retaliation Disability Discrimination Religion Discrimination Psychological Assessment File Correction +1 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frank Kim

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Correctional Service Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint (retaliation Under S.14.1 Chra) / Tribunal Inquiry and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether complainant filed prior human rights complaints under the CHRA
  2. 2 Whether complainant experienced adverse treatment after filing those complaints
  3. 3 Whether the human rights complaints were a factor in the alleged adverse treatment

Ratio Decidendi

The complaint is dismissed because the Tribunal found no evidence the psychologist knew of the Commission-filed human rights complaints or that those complaints were factors in her report; the report's references to 'complaints and grievances' plainly referred to numerous internal memos and observed patterns of dissatisfaction relevant to clinical risk assessment, and the complainant's perception that those references were retaliation for his human rights filings was not objectively reasonable.

Court Disposition

Complaint dismissed