Richards v. Correctional Service Canada

Richards v. Correctional Service Canada

The Tribunal requires more detailed will-say statements for the two objected-to witnesses (Ferrier and Williams) identifying specific events, names, locations and timeframes and requires the Commission to disclose any additional lines of questioning it intends to pursue; failure to comply may preclude examination at the hearing.

Citation
2025 CHRT 8
Parties
Complainant: Ryan Richards; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Correctional Service Canada
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Proceeding (human Rights Complaints Consolidated) / Pre Hearing Directions / Witness Disclosure Ruling (case Management)
Outcome
Tribunal denies CSC's request to exclude the two witnesses but grants CSC's objection as to sufficiency of particulars; directs complainant and Commission to file detailed summaries by deadline and warns of exclusion for non-compliance.
Legal Topics
Witness Disclosure, Systemic Discrimination, Racial Discrimination, Religion, Retaliation, Sexual Harassment, Procedural Orders
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Administrative Law Evidence and Procedure Witness Disclosure Systemic Discrimination Racial Discrimination Religion Retaliation +2 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ryan Richards

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Correctional Service Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Proceeding (human Rights Complaints Consolidated) / Pre Hearing Directions / Witness Disclosure Ruling (case Management)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Sufficiency of will-say witness summaries under Rule 18
  2. 2 Particularity required for evidence of systemic discrimination
  3. 3 Temporal and institutional scope of admissible incidents (10-year relevance issue)

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal requires more detailed will-say statements for the two objected-to witnesses (Ferrier and Williams) identifying specific events, names, locations and timeframes and requires the Commission to disclose any additional lines of questioning it intends to pursue; failure to comply may preclude examination at the hearing.

Court Disposition

Tribunal denies CSC's request to exclude the two witnesses but grants CSC's objection as to sufficiency of particulars; directs complainant and Commission to file detailed summaries by deadline and warns of exclusion for non-compliance.

Orders

  • By February 28, 2025, complainant to file detailed witness statements (will-says) for Redford Ferrier and Nathaniel Williams specifying events, names, locations, timeframes and material facts.
  • By February 28, 2025, the Commission to provide a summary of any evidence it intends to elicit from Ferrier and Williams not already included in the complainant's will-says.