Murray v. Immigration and Refugee Board

Murray v. Immigration and Refugee Board

The Tribunal held SOPs may include contextual facts outside the narrow March 2003–March 2004 referral period for the purposes of proving systemic discrimination, but references to section 7 of the CHRA were beyond the scope of the present referral and must be struck from the Complainant's SOP; the request for further particulars was premature and should await document production.

Citation
2018 CHRT 32
Parties
Complainant: Norman Murray; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Immigration and Refugee Board
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Systemic Employment Discrimination / Ruling on Motion to Strike (pre Hearing)
Outcome
Motion partially granted
Legal Topics
Systemic Discrimination, Scope of Complaint, Disclosure, Particulars, Judicial Review
Source Language
English
Human Rights Employment Law Administrative Law Systemic Discrimination Scope of Complaint Disclosure Particulars Judicial Review

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Norman Murray

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Immigration and Refugee Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Systemic Employment Discrimination / Ruling on Motion to Strike (pre Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraphs of Statements of Particulars that allegedly fall outside the referral should be struck
  2. 2 Whether references to section 7 of the CHRA may be pleaded when the referral is limited to section 10 systemic discrimination for March 2003–March 2004 at the Toronto Regional Office
  3. 3 Whether the Respondent is entitled to further particulars at this pre-hearing stage

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held SOPs may include contextual facts outside the narrow March 2003–March 2004 referral period for the purposes of proving systemic discrimination, but references to section 7 of the CHRA were beyond the scope of the present referral and must be struck from the Complainant's SOP; the request for further particulars was premature and should await document production.

Court Disposition

Motion partially granted

Orders

  • References to section 7 of the Canadian Human Rights Act are struck from paragraph 1 of the Complainant's Statement of Particulars.
  • References to section 7 of the Canadian Human Rights Act are struck from paragraph 28 of the Complainant's Statement of Particulars.