Davidson v. Global Affairs Canada

Davidson v. Global Affairs Canada

The Tribunal may require parties to follow case management directions and templates to ensure efficient virtual hearings; unexplained unilateral alterations to documentary evidence (redactions/highlighting) are not permitted and redactions require notice and, where appropriate, a confidentiality order under s.52 of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2023 CHRT 52
Parties
Complainant: Ray Davidson; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Global Affairs Canada
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint (tribunal) / Case Management Ruling Pre Hearing
Outcome
Tribunal ordered correction and refile of the Joint List of Documents and required explanation of unexplained redactions/highlighting.
Legal Topics
Colour, National or Ethnic Origin, Race, Document Production, Confidentiality Orders
Source Language
english
Human Rights Administrative Law Evidence and Disclosure Colour National or Ethnic Origin Race Document Production Confidentiality Orders

Source-derived case record

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ray Davidson

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Global Affairs Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint (tribunal) / Case Management Ruling Pre Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether parties must follow Tribunal case management directions and template for List of Documents
  2. 2 Whether unilateral redactions and highlighting in filed documents are permissible
  3. 3 Whether a confidentiality order under section 52 of the Act is required for redactions

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal may require parties to follow case management directions and templates to ensure efficient virtual hearings; unexplained unilateral alterations to documentary evidence (redactions/highlighting) are not permitted and redactions require notice and, where appropriate, a confidentiality order under s.52 of the Act; non‑compliant Lists must be corrected and refiled when errors would impair the fairness or efficiency of the hearing.

Court Disposition

Tribunal ordered correction and refile of the Joint List of Documents and required explanation of unexplained redactions/highlighting.

Orders

  • Refile a corrected Joint List of Documents & Documents on or before November 23, 2023.
  • Party(s) with direct knowledge of the redactions and highlighting must provide a written explanation to the Tribunal by November 23, 2023; they are encouraged to canvass other parties for their positions.