Davidson v. Global Affairs Canada

Davidson v. Global Affairs Canada

The motion is dismissed because it was speculative and unnecessary: the testimony about the three consultants is connected to a live issue contained in the Fourth ASOPs (the Respondent’s assertion about performance), the Respondent failed to timely object or seek expungement, no specific prejudice was shown, and granting the declaratory order would unlawfully fetter the Tribunal’s statutory procedural discretion to manage evidence and motions during the hearing; parties remain free to object to admissibility or argue weight at closing or bring a properly supported motion if a concrete issue arises.

Citation
2024 CHRT 4
Parties
Complainant: Ray Davidson; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Global Affairs Canada
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint (employment Discrimination) / Hearing (merits) — In‑session Ruling on Procedural Motion
Outcome
Motion dismissed without prejudice
Legal Topics
Statement of Particulars, Pleadings and Amendments, Admissibility and Weight of Evidence, Procedural Fairness, Tribunal Discretion, Motions Practice
Source Language
English
Human Rights Employment Law Administrative Law Evidence and Procedure Statement of Particulars Pleadings and Amendments Admissibility and Weight of Evidence Procedural Fairness +2 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ray Davidson

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Global Affairs Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint (employment Discrimination) / Hearing (merits) — In‑session Ruling on Procedural Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal should declare the most recent Fourth Amended Statements of Particulars (ASOPs) to be the sole and final particulars for the hearing
  2. 2 Whether testimony referencing facts contained only in earlier versions of SOPs may be used or should be struck or given zero weight
  3. 3 Whether the Respondent demonstrated prejudice from admission of the evidence and therefore entitlement to the declaratory relief sought

Ratio Decidendi

The motion is dismissed because it was speculative and unnecessary: the testimony about the three consultants is connected to a live issue contained in the Fourth ASOPs (the Respondent’s assertion about performance), the Respondent failed to timely object or seek expungement, no specific prejudice was shown, and granting the declaratory order would unlawfully fetter the Tribunal’s statutory procedural discretion to manage evidence and motions during the hearing; parties remain free to object to admissibility or argue weight at closing or bring a properly supported motion if a concrete issue arises.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed without prejudice

Orders

  • The motion by Global Affairs Canada for a declaration that the current versions of the parties’ pleadings are the full and final particulars setting out the facts and issues for determination in this proceeding is dismissed.
  • Dismissal is without prejudice to any party’s ability to object to the materiality and relevance of proposed evidence at the hearing based on the content of the most recent ASOPs or to make submissions concerning evidence admitted at the hearing in final submissions.