Richards v. Correctional Service Canada

Richards v. Correctional Service Canada

Allegations that do not have a sufficient factual nexus to the referral record or the original complaint, or that plainly cannot establish retaliation because they do not allege personal adverse impact, are outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction and are struck; however, allegations that elaborate on incidents within the referred complaint remain; the complainant must specify remedial orders sought; granular striking of will‑say statements and an extension of timelines are premature or unwarranted.

Citation
2025 CHRT 5
Parties
Complainant: Ryan Richards; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Correctional Service Canada
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Human Rights (retaliation Under S.14.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act) / Ruling on Scope and Particulars (pre Hearing)
Outcome
Respondent's motion partially allowed and partially dismissed: specified paragraphs struck as out of scope or bound to fail; complainant ordered to specify remedial requests; other relief sought by respondent denied.
Legal Topics
Retaliation, Scope of Complaint, Particulars, Remedies, Pre Hearing Motions
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Administrative Law Tribunal Procedure Retaliation Scope of Complaint Particulars Remedies Pre Hearing Motions

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ryan Richards

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Correctional Service Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights (retaliation Under S.14.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act) / Ruling on Scope and Particulars (pre Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether specific allegations in the Statement of Particulars are outside the scope of the complaint referred to the Tribunal and should be struck
  2. 2 Whether portions of the complainant's witness will-say statements should be struck as out of scope
  3. 3 Whether further particulars are required to allow the respondent to fairly prepare its case

Ratio Decidendi

Allegations that do not have a sufficient factual nexus to the referral record or the original complaint, or that plainly cannot establish retaliation because they do not allege personal adverse impact, are outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction and are struck; however, allegations that elaborate on incidents within the referred complaint remain; the complainant must specify remedial orders sought; granular striking of will‑say statements and an extension of timelines are premature or unwarranted.

Court Disposition

Respondent's motion partially allowed and partially dismissed: specified paragraphs struck as out of scope or bound to fail; complainant ordered to specify remedial requests; other relief sought by respondent denied.

Orders

  • Strike paragraphs 16a (from "On Sept 17 2021" through "requesting (CCTV) footage that proved wrongdoing by CM Monnette and CX2 Delorne"), 20, 23 a-f, j, 59-68, 71 and 74 from the Complainant's Amended SOP dated September 27, 2024; evidence on these allegations will not be heard
  • Strike paragraphs 35 and 49–50 from the Commission's SOP; Commission to submit a revised SOP within 7 calendar days of this ruling