Davidson v. Public Services and Procurement Canada

Davidson v. Public Services and Procurement Canada

The Tribunal refused the parties' blanket request to bifurcate all three complaints into six hearings because bifurcation would be disproportionate, inefficient, risk significant delay and scheduling complexity, and would not ensure accurate apportionment of damages; instead the Tribunal ordered a sequenced case...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2023 CHRT 50
Parties
Complainant: Ray Davidson; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Public Services and Procurement Canada
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint (canadian Human Rights Tribunal) / Case Management Procedural Ruling
Outcome
Request to bifurcate all three complaints into separate liability and remedy hearings denied; Tribunal issued sequencing and procedural directions for the three complaints
Legal Topics
Bifurcation, Procedural Efficiency, Remedy, Mitigation, Overlap of Claims, Sequencing of Hearings, General Damages, Loss of Income, Double Recovery
Source Language
english
Human Rights Law Administrative Law Employment Law Bifurcation Procedural Efficiency Remedy Mitigation Overlap of Claims +4 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ray Davidson

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Public Services and Procurement Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint (canadian Human Rights Tribunal) / Case Management Procedural Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal should bifurcate three related complaints into separate liability and remedy hearings
  2. 2 Whether there is overlap in remedy (general damages and loss of income) among the three complaints and how to avoid double recovery
  3. 3 How to sequence hearings to ensure efficient use of Tribunal resources and accurate calculation of damages

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal refused the parties' blanket request to bifurcate all three complaints into six hearings because bifurcation would be disproportionate, inefficient, risk significant delay and scheduling complexity, and would not ensure accurate apportionment of damages; instead the Tribunal ordered a sequenced case management approach (GAC hearing proceeds with full presentation of liability and remedy evidence but with final mitigation and loss calculations to be resolved after the IRCC decision; IRCC heard after GAC; PSPC heard after IRCC; Tribunal reserves jurisdiction to apportion damages and adjust orders as necessary).

Court Disposition

Request to bifurcate all three complaints into separate liability and remedy hearings denied; Tribunal issued sequencing and procedural directions for the three complaints

Orders

  • Parties to the GAC complaint will present their cases respecting liability and remedy completely at the GAC hearing
  • Tribunal will issue a decision respecting liability in the GAC complaint to the parties