Thomas v. Correctional Service Canada

Thomas v. Correctional Service Canada

The Tribunal granted the motion to strike because the disputed SOP paragraphs alleged post‑employment conduct and family‑status discrimination that introduced a new ground and a different statutory context (services under s.5), lacked a sufficient nexus to the original employment complaint referred by the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2024 CHRT 139
Parties
Complainant: Larissa Thomas; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Correctional Service Canada
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Canadian Human Rights Act Complaint (discrimination in Employment) / Ruling on Motion to Strike (pre Hearing)
Outcome
Motion to strike granted; specified paragraphs struck from the Complainant's Statement of Particulars.
Legal Topics
Scope of Complaint, Motion to Strike, Post Employment Discrimination, Family Status, Proportionality, Remedies
Source Language
english
Human Rights Law Employment Law Administrative Law Tribunal Procedure Scope of Complaint Motion to Strike Post Employment Discrimination Family Status +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Larissa Thomas

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Correctional Service Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Canadian Human Rights Act Complaint (discrimination in Employment) / Ruling on Motion to Strike (pre Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraphs of the Statement of Particulars introduce new complaints beyond the Commission referral
  2. 2 Whether post-employment allegations based on family status and in the provision of services can be included in an employment complaint referred under s.49
  3. 3 Whether there is a sufficient nexus between the SOP allegations and the original complaint

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal granted the motion to strike because the disputed SOP paragraphs alleged post‑employment conduct and family‑status discrimination that introduced a new ground and a different statutory context (services under s.5), lacked a sufficient nexus to the original employment complaint referred by the Commission, and would unjustifiably expand scope and cost in violation of proportionality.

Court Disposition

Motion to strike granted; specified paragraphs struck from the Complainant's Statement of Particulars.

Orders

  • Strike Facts paragraphs 26 to 28 from the Statement of Particulars
  • Strike Issues & Position paragraphs 1(e) and 2(e) to 2(g) from the Statement of Particulars, with exceptions preserving the portions relating to denial of pay in lieu of notice and medical harm noted in the ruling