Grant v. Manitoba Telecom Services Inc.

Grant v. Manitoba Telecom Services Inc.

Undisclosed evidence is presumptively inadmissible under Rule 9(3); the panel may permit late disclosure but must impose conditions to prevent prejudice. The panel denied pre‑examination off‑stand review of newly disclosed documents by the complainant‑witness but allowed the respondent to introduce the documents and put them to the witness on the stand with sufficient time for on‑stand review. Requests to add witnesses must be supported by precise will‑says and full disclosure of supporting documents prior to hearing, and will be assessed for relevance and prejudice.

Citation
2010 CHRT 29
Parties
Complainant: Heather Lynn Grant; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Manitoba Telecom Services Inc.
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Human Rights (disability) / Interim Ruling
Outcome
Interim ruling permitting conditional admission process for newly disclosed documents and setting procedure for requests to add witnesses
Legal Topics
Disclosure, Procedural Fairness, Evidence Admissibility, Witness Addition, Disability
Source Language
English
Human Rights Employment Law Administrative Law Disclosure Procedural Fairness Evidence Admissibility Witness Addition Disability

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Heather Lynn Grant

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Manitoba Telecom Services Inc.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights (disability) / Interim Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether undisclosed evidence may be admitted at the hearing under CHRT rules
  2. 2 Whether late addition of witnesses should be permitted and on what terms
  3. 3 What remedies or conditions are required to mitigate prejudice from late disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

Undisclosed evidence is presumptively inadmissible under Rule 9(3); the panel may permit late disclosure but must impose conditions to prevent prejudice. The panel denied pre‑examination off‑stand review of newly disclosed documents by the complainant‑witness but allowed the respondent to introduce the documents and put them to the witness on the stand with sufficient time for on‑stand review. Requests to add witnesses must be supported by precise will‑says and full disclosure of supporting documents prior to hearing, and will be assessed for relevance and prejudice.

Court Disposition

Interim ruling permitting conditional admission process for newly disclosed documents and setting procedure for requests to add witnesses

Orders

  • Complainant‑witness shall not be given the opportunity to review newly disclosed documents prior to being questioned; if respondent introduces the documents it may put them to the witness on the stand and must allow sufficient time for on‑stand review.
  • Respondent may introduce the newly disclosed documents subject to the foregoing condition and the presumption of inadmissibility under Rule 9(3).