Christoforou v. John Grant Haulage Ltd.

Christoforou v. John Grant Haulage Ltd.

Applying White Burgess and Mohan to CHRT proceedings, the Tribunal found on the face of the report that Belchetz was a litigation retained expert whose responses to leading questions lacked independent judgment, failed the independence/impartiality threshold and was unnecessary and not sufficiently technical to assist the Tribunal; admitting the evidence would usurp the Tribunal's fact‑finding role and risk delay, cost and prejudice, so the report and viva voce evidence were excluded.

Citation
2016 CHRT 14
Parties
Complainant: Michael Christoforou; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: John Grant Haulage Ltd.
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint (employment Discrimination Age, Disability) / Interim Ruling on Motion to Exclude Expert Evidence (pre Hearing)
Outcome
Motion granted: expert report and viva voce evidence of Dr. Brett Belchetz excluded.
Legal Topics
Discrimination (age, Disability), Duty to Accommodate, Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Procedural Fairness, Gatekeeping and Cost Benefit Analysis
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Employment Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Discrimination (age, Disability) Duty to Accommodate Admissibility of Expert Evidence Procedural Fairness +1 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 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Christoforou

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

John Grant Haulage Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint (employment Discrimination Age, Disability) / Interim Ruling on Motion to Exclude Expert Evidence (pre Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to exclude the expert report and viva voce evidence of Dr. Brett Belchetz
  2. 2 Whether White Burgess and Mohan apply to CHRT proceedings
  3. 3 Whether Dr. Belchetz meets independence/impartiality threshold

Ratio Decidendi

Applying White Burgess and Mohan to CHRT proceedings, the Tribunal found on the face of the report that Belchetz was a litigation retained expert whose responses to leading questions lacked independent judgment, failed the independence/impartiality threshold and was unnecessary and not sufficiently technical to assist the Tribunal; admitting the evidence would usurp the Tribunal's fact‑finding role and risk delay, cost and prejudice, so the report and viva voce evidence were excluded.

Court Disposition

Motion granted: expert report and viva voce evidence of Dr. Brett Belchetz excluded.

Orders

  • Exclude the letter/report of Dr. Brett Belchetz dated June 21, 2016 (or July 21 as referenced) and any viva voce evidence from Dr. Brett Belchetz at the hearing.
  • Proceed with the scheduled hearing without admitting Dr. Belchetz’s evidence.