Ledoux v. Gambler First Nation

Ledoux v. Gambler First Nation

The Tribunal held that the requested PIFs meet the arguable relevance threshold and must be disclosed; where the Respondent does not have possession it must exercise best efforts to obtain the documents (including from federal departments) and produce them within a specified timeframe, because disclosure of arguably relevant information is necessary for parties to present their cases and to test undue hardship defences.

Citation
2017 CHRT 13
Parties
Complainant: Gordon Ledoux; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Gambler First Nation
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Human Rights (disability) / Interim — Disclosure Motion
Outcome
Motion granted; disclosure ordered
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Disclosure of Documents, Undue Hardship, Procedural Fairness, Case Management
Source Language
English
Human Rights Administrative Law Evidence/disclosure Disability Discrimination Disclosure of Documents Undue Hardship Procedural Fairness Case Management

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gordon Ledoux

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Gambler First Nation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights (disability) / Interim — Disclosure Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether requested Project Information Forms (PIFs) are arguably relevant to issues in dispute
  2. 2 Whether the request is a fishing expedition or sufficiently particularized
  3. 3 What obligations a party has to produce documents not in its possession

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that the requested PIFs meet the arguable relevance threshold and must be disclosed; where the Respondent does not have possession it must exercise best efforts to obtain the documents (including from federal departments) and produce them within a specified timeframe, because disclosure of arguably relevant information is necessary for parties to present their cases and to test undue hardship defences.

Court Disposition

Motion granted; disclosure ordered

Orders

  • Respondent will exercise its best efforts to provide the Project Information Forms sought in the Complainant's Motion, including requesting such material from federal government departments if not in its possession
  • Respondent will provide the information to the parties within four weeks of the date of this decision