Dinardo v. Correctional Services Canada

Dinardo v. Correctional Services Canada

The Tribunal allowed both the Timing and Quantum Amendments because the Quantum Amendment did not expand the scope or add new allegations, there was a sufficient nexus to the original complaints, and allowing the amendment would not prejudice the Respondent; the question of whether the increased remedy is legally permissible under sections 53(2)(e) and 53(3) CHRA is reserved for full hearing on the merits.

Citation
2024 CHRT 80
Parties
Complainant: Nicholas Dinardo; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Correctional Services Canada
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint (canadian Human Rights Tribunal) / Ruling on Motion to Amend Statement of Particulars (pre Hearing)
Outcome
Requested amendments allowed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Compensation/quantum, Statutory Compensation Caps, Nexus and Prejudice, Retaliation as Discriminatory Practice
Source Language
English
Human Rights Administrative Law Remedies Amendment of Pleadings Compensation/quantum Statutory Compensation Caps Nexus and Prejudice Retaliation as Discriminatory Practice

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicholas Dinardo

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Correctional Services Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint (canadian Human Rights Tribunal) / Ruling on Motion to Amend Statement of Particulars (pre Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Timing Amendments to the Statement of Particulars should be allowed
  2. 2 Whether Quantum Amendment increasing claimed compensation should be allowed
  3. 3 Whether the Quantum Amendment is plain and obvious and has no chance of success

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal allowed both the Timing and Quantum Amendments because the Quantum Amendment did not expand the scope or add new allegations, there was a sufficient nexus to the original complaints, and allowing the amendment would not prejudice the Respondent; the question of whether the increased remedy is legally permissible under sections 53(2)(e) and 53(3) CHRA is reserved for full hearing on the merits.

Court Disposition

Requested amendments allowed

Orders

  • On consent, the Timing Amendments to the Complainant's Statement of Particulars are allowed
  • The Quantum Amendment to the Complainant's Statement of Particulars is allowed