Mayers v. Correctional Service Canada

Mayers v. Correctional Service Canada

The Impugned Submissions recapitulate allegations that constituted the Subsequent Complaint which the Commission decided not to deal with under s.41(1)(b) of the CHRA; because the Commission declined to refer those allegations, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to inquire into them and therefore the Impugned Submissions must be struck from the Complainant's Pleadings.

Citation
2026 CHRT 26
Parties
Complainant: Ron Mayers; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Correctional Service Canada
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 March 2026
Procedural Posture
CHRA Inquiry / Ruling on Motion to Strike
Outcome
Motion granted; Impugned Submissions struck from the Complainant's Pleadings.
Legal Topics
Racial Discrimination, Harassment, Retaliation, Scope of Complaint, Jurisdiction, Motions to Strike
Source Language
English
Human Rights Administrative Law Corrections Racial Discrimination Harassment Retaliation Scope of Complaint Jurisdiction +1 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ron Mayers

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Correctional Service Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

CHRA Inquiry / Ruling on Motion to Strike

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether portions of the Complainant's Statement of Particulars exceed the scope of the complaint referred by the Commission
  2. 2 Whether the Impugned Submissions constitute a substantially new complaint
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to inquire into allegations the Commission decided not to deal with under s.41(1)(b) of the CHRA

Ratio Decidendi

The Impugned Submissions recapitulate allegations that constituted the Subsequent Complaint which the Commission decided not to deal with under s.41(1)(b) of the CHRA; because the Commission declined to refer those allegations, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to inquire into them and therefore the Impugned Submissions must be struck from the Complainant's Pleadings.

Court Disposition

Motion granted; Impugned Submissions struck from the Complainant's Pleadings.

Orders

  • Motion granted.
  • Impugned Submissions struck from the Complainant's Pleadings.