Coyne and Way v. Salt River First Nation

Coyne and Way v. Salt River First Nation

The Tribunal granted the amendment to add a s.14.1 retaliation allegation because the SRFN letter was clearly linked to the original complaints and the retaliation claim was not plainly doomed to fail; the hearing was reopened because the letter evidence could influence the outcome, could not have been discovered earlier with reasonable diligence, and reopening on a narrow scope with set disclosure deadlines mitigated prejudice and fairness concerns.

Citation
2024 CHRT 11
Parties
Complainant: Christopher Coyne; Complainant: Penny Way; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Salt River First Nation
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Canadian Human Rights Act Complaint / Post Evidence, Pre Final Submissions; Motion to Amend and Reopen Granted
Outcome
Motions granted: amendment to add s.14.1 retaliation allegation and hearing reopened for limited evidence regarding the SRFN letter.
Legal Topics
Retaliation Under S.14.1 CHRA, Amendment of Complaint, Reopening Hearing to Admit Evidence, Family Status Discrimination, Per Capita Distribution (pcd) Payments
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Administrative Law Retaliation Under S.14.1 CHRA Amendment of Complaint Reopening Hearing to Admit Evidence Family Status Discrimination Per Capita Distribution (pcd) Payments

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Coyne

Complainant

Penny Way

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Salt River First Nation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Canadian Human Rights Act Complaint / Post Evidence, Pre Final Submissions; Motion to Amend and Reopen Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the complaints may be amended to add a s.14.1 retaliation allegation
  2. 2 Whether the hearing should be reopened to admit evidence regarding the SRFN letter
  3. 3 Whether the SRFN letter constitutes adverse treatment/retaliation

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal granted the amendment to add a s.14.1 retaliation allegation because the SRFN letter was clearly linked to the original complaints and the retaliation claim was not plainly doomed to fail; the hearing was reopened because the letter evidence could influence the outcome, could not have been discovered earlier with reasonable diligence, and reopening on a narrow scope with set disclosure deadlines mitigated prejudice and fairness concerns.

Court Disposition

Motions granted: amendment to add s.14.1 retaliation allegation and hearing reopened for limited evidence regarding the SRFN letter.

Orders

  • Hearing reconvened March 26 and 27, 2024 by videoconference.
  • Complainants to lead evidence-in-chief on the s.14.1 allegation, subject to cross-examination and re-examination; Commission to participate as before; SRFN may call evidence in response.