Richards v. Correctional Service Canada

Richards v. Correctional Service Canada

The Tribunal dismissed the request to amend the retaliation complaints to add s.5 allegations because the proposed amendment would introduce a substantively different discriminatory practice not referred by the Commission, thereby exceeding the Tribunal's jurisdiction, bypassing the Commission process, and causing...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2025 CHRT 93
Parties
Complainant: Ryan Richards; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Correctional Service Canada
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Canadian Human Rights Act Retaliation / Pre Hearing Motion (amendment Request) and Consolidation; Case Management Directions Issued
Outcome
Motion to amend dismissed; HR-DP-2999-24 and HR-DP-3025-24 consolidated; case management directions issued
Legal Topics
Retaliation (s.14.1), Discrimination in Provision of Services (s.5), Amendment of Complaint, Consolidation of Proceedings, Case Management and Procedure
Source Language
english
Human Rights Law Administrative Law Retaliation (s.14.1) Discrimination in Provision of Services (s.5) Amendment of Complaint Consolidation of Proceedings Case Management and Procedure

Source-derived case record

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ryan Richards

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Correctional Service Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Canadian Human Rights Act Retaliation / Pre Hearing Motion (amendment Request) and Consolidation; Case Management Directions Issued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal may amend retaliation complaints to add s.5 service discrimination allegations after Commission referral
  2. 2 Whether consolidation of the retaliation files is appropriate
  3. 3 Whether the proposed amendment would introduce a substantially new complaint and exceed the Tribunal's jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal dismissed the request to amend the retaliation complaints to add s.5 allegations because the proposed amendment would introduce a substantively different discriminatory practice not referred by the Commission, thereby exceeding the Tribunal's jurisdiction, bypassing the Commission process, and causing prejudice and delay to the respondent; the Tribunal consolidated the two retaliation files because they share common issues of law and fact under s.14.1 and consolidation would not prejudice the parties.

Court Disposition

Motion to amend dismissed; HR-DP-2999-24 and HR-DP-3025-24 consolidated; case management directions issued

Orders

  • HR-DP-2999-24 and HR-DP-3025-24 are consolidated and will proceed together; Registry to adjust records accordingly
  • Complainant's motion to amend the complaints to add s.5 allegations is dismissed