Dinardo v. Correctional Services Canada

Dinardo v. Correctional Services Canada

The Tribunal allowed the Removal and Retaliation Amendments because the removal was consented to and the retaliation allegations share a sufficient nexus with the original complaints, would not cause unjust prejudice given measures to allow CSC to prepare (including three days of cross-examination and possibility to recall the Complainant), and proportionality favored inclusion rather than requiring a separate complaint; Timing and Quantum Amendments were deferred due to proximity of hearing dates.

Citation
2024 CHRT 3
Parties
Complainant: Nicholas Dinardo; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Correctional Services Canada; Interested Party: Native Women’s Association of Canada; Interested Party: CAEFS; Interested Party: West Coast LEAF
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Tribunal Proceeding (consolidated Complaints) / Ruling on Motion to Amend Statement of Particulars; Pre Hearing
Outcome
Partial allowance: Removal and Retaliation Amendments allowed; Timing and Quantum Amendments deferred for post-hearing determination
Legal Topics
Discrimination, Harassment, Retaliation, Amendment of Pleadings, Procedural Fairness, Proportionality
Source Language
English
Human Rights Corrections Law Administrative Law Discrimination Harassment Retaliation Amendment of Pleadings Procedural Fairness +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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicholas Dinardo

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Correctional Services Canada

Respondent

Native Women’s Association of Canada

Interested Party

CAEFS

Interested Party

West Coast LEAF

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Tribunal Proceeding (consolidated Complaints) / Ruling on Motion to Amend Statement of Particulars; Pre Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proposed amendments to the Statement of Particulars should be allowed
  2. 2 Whether there is a sufficient nexus in fact and law between the original complaints and the retaliation amendments
  3. 3 Whether allowing amendments would unjustly prejudice the Respondent given timing before hearing

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal allowed the Removal and Retaliation Amendments because the removal was consented to and the retaliation allegations share a sufficient nexus with the original complaints, would not cause unjust prejudice given measures to allow CSC to prepare (including three days of cross-examination and possibility to recall the Complainant), and proportionality favored inclusion rather than requiring a separate complaint; Timing and Quantum Amendments were deferred due to proximity of hearing dates.

Court Disposition

Partial allowance: Removal and Retaliation Amendments allowed; Timing and Quantum Amendments deferred for post-hearing determination

Orders

  • On consent, the Removal Amendments to the Complainant’s Statement of Particulars are allowed
  • The requested Timing Amendments and Quantum Amendments to the Complainant’s Statement of Particulars will be dealt with after the hearing dates of February 12-16, 2024