Tabor v. Millbrook First Nation

Tabor v. Millbrook First Nation

The motion to amend was granted because the additional retaliation allegations were linked to the original complaint, were supported by a factual outline and documentation, were not plainly or obviously incapable of success, and allowing the amendment would not prejudice the Respondent who will have a full opportunity to respond and can address any prejudice through amended statements of particulars; judicial economy and fairness favor hearing reprisals within the original proceeding.

Citation
2013 CHRT 9
Parties
Complainant: Stacey Lee Tabor; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Millbrook First Nation
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Discrimination and Reprisal / Interim Ruling on Motion to Amend Complaints
Outcome
Motion to amend the complaints granted
Legal Topics
Retaliation/reprisal, Amendment of Complaints, Jurisdiction and Referral Process, Prejudice and Procedural Fairness
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Administrative Law Tribunal Procedure Retaliation/reprisal Amendment of Complaints Jurisdiction and Referral Process Prejudice and Procedural Fairness

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stacey Lee Tabor

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Millbrook First Nation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Discrimination and Reprisal / Interim Ruling on Motion to Amend Complaints

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal should permit amendment of the complaints to add further allegations of retaliation
  2. 2 Whether the amendment would introduce a substantially new complaint bypassing the Commission referral process
  3. 3 Whether the Respondent would be prejudiced by allowing the amendment

Ratio Decidendi

The motion to amend was granted because the additional retaliation allegations were linked to the original complaint, were supported by a factual outline and documentation, were not plainly or obviously incapable of success, and allowing the amendment would not prejudice the Respondent who will have a full opportunity to respond and can address any prejudice through amended statements of particulars; judicial economy and fairness favor hearing reprisals within the original proceeding.

Court Disposition

Motion to amend the complaints granted

Orders

  • Complainant granted leave to amend complaints to add further allegations of retaliation
  • Parties directed to file amended Statements of Particulars pursuant to a schedule to be established at the case management conference on April 12, 2013