Kowalski v. Ryder Integrated Logistics

Kowalski v. Ryder Integrated Logistics

The Commission exercised its s.41 discretion not to deal with Allegations #3 and #4 and did not refer those allegations to the Tribunal; therefore the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate those allegations and the corresponding paragraphs (29–31) and named references (M.O. and T.B.) are struck. However, a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2009 CHRT 22
Parties
Complainant: Pawel Kowalski; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Ryder Integrated Logistics
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint (canadian Human Rights Tribunal) / Ruling on Motion to Strike (pre Hearing)
Outcome
Motion granted in part and dismissed in part.
Legal Topics
Discrimination, Harassment, Tribunal Jurisdiction, Procedural Objections, Remedies
Source Language
english
Human Rights Employment Law Administrative Law Discrimination Harassment Tribunal Jurisdiction Procedural Objections Remedies

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pawel Kowalski

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Ryder Integrated Logistics

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint (canadian Human Rights Tribunal) / Ruling on Motion to Strike (pre Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commission referred the entire complaint to the Tribunal
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear allegations the Commission declined to deal with under s.41
  3. 3 Whether specified passages in the Statement of Particulars must be struck as beyond the Tribunal's jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The Commission exercised its s.41 discretion not to deal with Allegations #3 and #4 and did not refer those allegations to the Tribunal; therefore the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate those allegations and the corresponding paragraphs (29–31) and named references (M.O. and T.B.) are struck. However, a complainant may challenge employer policy and plead special compensation where supporting facts are alleged; paragraphs challenging policy (38) and pleading wilful/reckless conduct (74) are not struck.

Court Disposition

Motion granted in part and dismissed in part.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 29 to 31 of the Complainant's Statement of Particulars are stricken.
  • References to employees with initials M.O. and T.B. are stricken from Paragraph 23 of the Statement of Particulars.