Constantinescu v. Correctional Service Canada

Constantinescu v. Correctional Service Canada

The motion for recusal is dismissed: the complainant waived the right to seek recusal by delaying a year despite being advised to file earlier, and on the merits a right‑minded, reasonable and informed person would not conclude there is a reasonable apprehension of bias given the presumption of impartiality and the contextual nature of the Member’s disclosure and case management decisions.

Citation
2020 CHRT 3
Parties
Complainant: Cecilia Constantinescu; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Correctional Service Canada
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Complaint / Motion for Recusal (interim Ruling)
Outcome
Motion for recusal dismissed
Legal Topics
Recusal, Reasonable Apprehension of Bias, Waiver, Disclosure/arguable Relevance, Privilege Claims, Confidentiality Orders, Abuse of Process, Public Access to Proceedings, Case Management Timeliness
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Human Rights Law Procedural Fairness Evidence and Disclosure Judicial Ethics Recusal Reasonable Apprehension of Bias Waiver +6 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 26 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cecilia Constantinescu

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Correctional Service Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Complaint / Motion for Recusal (interim Ruling)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether complainant waived right to seek recusal by delaying raising bias
  2. 2 Whether a reasonable apprehension of bias exists requiring recusal
  3. 3 Proper legal test for reasonable apprehension of bias

Ratio Decidendi

The motion for recusal is dismissed: the complainant waived the right to seek recusal by delaying a year despite being advised to file earlier, and on the merits a right‑minded, reasonable and informed person would not conclude there is a reasonable apprehension of bias given the presumption of impartiality and the contextual nature of the Member’s disclosure and case management decisions.

Court Disposition

Motion for recusal dismissed

Orders

  • Motion for recusal dismissed