Zhou v. National Research Council and Chander P. Grover

Zhou v. National Research Council and Chander P. Grover

The Tribunal lacks statutory authority to hear a separate human rights complaint advanced by a respondent against a co-respondent within the respondent’s Statement of Particulars absent a Commission referral under s.49(1); accordingly, portions of Dr. Grover’s Statement of Particulars that amount to such a complaint must be struck, while allegations properly forming part of his defence may remain and he is granted limited leave to amend to preserve coherence.

Citation
2009 CHRT 7
Parties
Complainant: Ming Zhou; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: National Research Council; Respondent: Chander P. Grover
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint (canadian Human Rights Act) / Interim Ruling on Strike Motion
Outcome
Motion to strike partially granted.
Legal Topics
Race Discrimination, National or Ethnic Origin, Retaliation, Jurisdiction, Striking Pleadings, Amendment of Pleadings
Source Language
English
Human Rights Employment Administrative Law Civil Procedure Race Discrimination National or Ethnic Origin Retaliation Jurisdiction +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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ming Zhou

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

National Research Council

Respondent

Chander P. Grover

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint (canadian Human Rights Act) / Interim Ruling on Strike Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate a respondent’s allegations against a co-respondent raised within a Statement of Particulars
  2. 2 Whether portions of Dr. Grover’s Statement of Particulars amount to a separate human rights complaint or cross-claim that must be struck
  3. 3 What parts of the Statement of Particulars may properly be relied on as defence material

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal lacks statutory authority to hear a separate human rights complaint advanced by a respondent against a co-respondent within the respondent’s Statement of Particulars absent a Commission referral under s.49(1); accordingly, portions of Dr. Grover’s Statement of Particulars that amount to such a complaint must be struck, while allegations properly forming part of his defence may remain and he is granted limited leave to amend to preserve coherence.

Court Disposition

Motion to strike partially granted.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 12 to 18 inclusive of Dr. Grover’s Statement of Particulars are struck.
  • Paragraphs 20 and 21 are struck.