Last v. Correctional Service Canada

Last v. Correctional Service Canada

The Tribunal found that allegations of systemic discrimination were raised in the original complaint and properly elaborated through the investigation report and SOPs; therefore paragraphs 44–51 of the Commission's SOP are within the scope of the complaint and cannot be struck. However, the Tribunal lacks authority to grant the specific $2,000,000 endowment sought in paragraph 105(a) of the complainant's SOP, so that paragraph is struck.

Citation
2024 CHRT 112
Parties
Complainant: Gregory Last; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Correctional Service Canada
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint (canadian Human Rights Tribunal) / Pre Hearing Motion Ruling (motion to Determine Issues and Strike Paragraphs)
Outcome
Motion to strike paragraphs 44–51 of the Commission's SOP denied; motion to strike paragraph 105(a) of the complainant's SOP granted.
Legal Topics
Systemic Discrimination, Risk Assessment Tools and Cultural Bias, Security Classification, Remedies and Jurisdiction, Particularization of Complaints
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Administrative Law Correctional Law Systemic Discrimination Risk Assessment Tools and Cultural Bias Security Classification Remedies and Jurisdiction Particularization of Complaints

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

Parties

Gregory Last

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Correctional Service Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint (canadian Human Rights Tribunal) / Pre Hearing Motion Ruling (motion to Determine Issues and Strike Paragraphs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraphs 44–51 of the Commission's SOP (allegations about actuarial and psychological risk assessment tools and systemic racism) exceed the scope of the original complaint
  2. 2 Whether paragraph 105(a) of the complainant's SOP requesting a $2,000,000 endowment is a remedy available under the Canadian Human Rights Act and within Tribunal jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal may rely on the Commission's investigation report and subsequent SOPs to determine scope and particularization of systemic allegations

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that allegations of systemic discrimination were raised in the original complaint and properly elaborated through the investigation report and SOPs; therefore paragraphs 44–51 of the Commission's SOP are within the scope of the complaint and cannot be struck. However, the Tribunal lacks authority to grant the specific $2,000,000 endowment sought in paragraph 105(a) of the complainant's SOP, so that paragraph is struck.

Court Disposition

Motion to strike paragraphs 44–51 of the Commission's SOP denied; motion to strike paragraph 105(a) of the complainant's SOP granted.

Orders

  • CSC’s motion to strike paragraphs 44–51 of the Commission’s SOP is denied.
  • CSC’s motion to strike paragraph 105(a) of Mr. Last’s SOP is granted; paragraph 105(a) is struck.