Lepine and Lepine (on behalf of A.B.) v. Correctional Service Canada

Lepine and Lepine (on behalf of A.B.) v. Correctional Service Canada

Motion granted in part: tribunal struck portions of Dr. Paynter’s report and reply report that were irrelevant to the precise allegations, unnecessary, lacked proper factual foundation, or fell outside her expertise; permitted other limited portions (e.g., impacts of surveillance on pregnant persons, how maternal care providers can account for indigeneity, and opinions on correctional officers’ presence) as potentially probative; concluded tribunal’s mandate is confined to allegations under the CHRA and systemic remedies must flow from discrimination established; concerns about Paynter’s advocacy did not meet the clear threshold to exclude her wholesale and will be addressed in weighing...

Citation
2025 CHRT 91
Parties
Complainant: Amanda Lepine; Complainant: A.B. (represented by Amanda Lepine); Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Correctional Service Canada; Interested Party: West Coast LEAF
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint — Admissibility Motion Regarding Expert Evidence / Pre Hearing Admissibility Ruling
Outcome
Motion granted in part; specific impugned portions of expert report and reply report struck as inadmissible while other portions admitted for consideration.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Systemic Discrimination, Scope of Tribunal Mandate, Reply Expert Evidence and Case Splitting, Surveillance and Patient Care
Source Language
English
Human Rights Administrative Law Evidence Law Indigenous Law Health Law Admissibility of Expert Evidence Systemic Discrimination Scope of Tribunal Mandate +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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amanda Lepine

Complainant

A.B. (represented by Amanda Lepine)

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Correctional Service Canada

Respondent

West Coast LEAF

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint — Admissibility Motion Regarding Expert Evidence / Pre Hearing Admissibility Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether portions of proposed expert reports are admissible as relevant and necessary to the complaints
  2. 2 Whether the proposed expert is properly qualified and impartial
  3. 3 Whether the benefits of admitting the proposed expert evidence outweigh the risks of distraction or prejudice

Ratio Decidendi

Motion granted in part: tribunal struck portions of Dr. Paynter’s report and reply report that were irrelevant to the precise allegations, unnecessary, lacked proper factual foundation, or fell outside her expertise; permitted other limited portions (e.g., impacts of surveillance on pregnant persons, how maternal care providers can account for indigeneity, and opinions on correctional officers’ presence) as potentially probative; concluded tribunal’s mandate is confined to allegations under the CHRA and systemic remedies must flow from discrimination established; concerns about Paynter’s advocacy did not meet the clear threshold to exclude her wholesale and will be addressed in weighing...

Court Disposition

Motion granted in part; specific impugned portions of expert report and reply report struck as inadmissible while other portions admitted for consideration.

Orders

  • Complainants must refile Dr. Paynter’s report and reply report within 21 days with the portions ruled inadmissible struck out using the strike-out function of their word processing program.
  • Respondent may file a limited reply report from Dr. Nordahl within 21 days addressing only admitted portions of Dr. Paynter’s reply and topics not fully addressed in Dr. Nordahl’s original report.