Torraville v. Jazz Aviation LP

Torraville v. Jazz Aviation LP

The Tribunal will limit its inquiry to alleged discriminatory practices under ss.7 and 10 of the Canadian Human Rights Act beginning in 2015 and ongoing; the Complainant cannot expand the complaint to pursue discrete historical allegations predating 2015 as new complaints, though limited pre-2015 material may be admissible as contextual evidence; specific portions of the Complainant's SOP that lack sufficient nexus to the referred complaint are struck as specified, and the Complainant must file revised SOPs by January 21, 2021.

Citation
2020 CHRT 40
Parties
Complainant: Rodney Torraville; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Jazz Aviation LP
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Human Rights (disability) / Pre Hearing Motion: Ruling on Motion to Strike Portions of Statement of Particulars and Defining Scope of Inquiry
Outcome
Partial grant of Respondent's motion to strike: scope of inquiry limited to discriminatory practices beginning in 2015 and ongoing; some paragraphs of the Complainant's SOP struck for lacking nexus; other disputed paragraphs retained for contextual relevance.
Legal Topics
Scope of Complaint, Tribunal Vs Commission Jurisdiction, Limitation Period, Motion to Strike Pleadings, Accommodation and Fitness to Travel, Section 15 Bona Fide Occupational Requirement Defence
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Human Rights Law Employment Law Disability Law Scope of Complaint Tribunal Vs Commission Jurisdiction Limitation Period Motion to Strike Pleadings +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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rodney Torraville

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Jazz Aviation LP

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights (disability) / Pre Hearing Motion: Ruling on Motion to Strike Portions of Statement of Particulars and Defining Scope of Inquiry

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the temporal and subject-matter scope of the complaint referred by the Commission?
  2. 2 Whether the Complainant may expand the scope of the complaint beyond what the Commission referred.
  3. 3 Whether specified paragraphs of the Complainant's SOP should be struck for lacking nexus or causing prejudice.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal will limit its inquiry to alleged discriminatory practices under ss.7 and 10 of the Canadian Human Rights Act beginning in 2015 and ongoing; the Complainant cannot expand the complaint to pursue discrete historical allegations predating 2015 as new complaints, though limited pre-2015 material may be admissible as contextual evidence; specific portions of the Complainant's SOP that lack sufficient nexus to the referred complaint are struck as specified, and the Complainant must file revised SOPs by January 21, 2021.

Court Disposition

Partial grant of Respondent's motion to strike: scope of inquiry limited to discriminatory practices beginning in 2015 and ongoing; some paragraphs of the Complainant's SOP struck for lacking nexus; other disputed paragraphs retained for contextual relevance.

Orders

  • The complaint before the Tribunal is limited to alleged discriminatory practices beginning in 2015 and ongoing that are said to contravene ss.7 and 10 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
  • Strike from the Complainant's January 6, 2020 SOP: portion of paragraph 4 identified as 'often shortly after unnecessary ongoing conflict with management and Health Services.'; portion of paragraph 5 identified as 'I was repeatedly singled out, bullied, harassed and subjected to unnecessary stress on a regular...