Chaudhary v. Smoother Movers

Chaudhary v. Smoother Movers

Tribunal dismissed both delay motions because claimed prejudice stemmed from respondent inaction and there was no proof of significant prejudice from decision delay; tribunal found complainant established prima facie discrimination under s.7(b) and harassment under s.14 on grounds of race, national or ethnic origin and colour, but weighed credibility of witnesses and found respondent witnesses credible and complainant inconsistent; on balance of probabilities the prima facie discrimination did not occur as alleged and the complaint was dismissed.

Citation
2013 CHRT 15
Parties
Complainant: Todd Chaudhary; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Smoother Movers
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint / Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Complaint dismissed
Legal Topics
Discrimination, Harassment, Sexual Harassment, Delay/timeliness, Prima Facie Burden
Source Language
English
Human Rights Employment Law Administrative Law Discrimination Harassment Sexual Harassment Delay/timeliness Prima Facie Burden

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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Todd Chaudhary

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Smoother Movers

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint / Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the complaint should be dismissed for prejudice caused by delay in hearing and delay in decision
  2. 2 Whether the complainant established a prima facie case under subsection 7(a) of the Canadian Human Rights Act
  3. 3 Whether the complainant established a prima facie case under subsection 7(b) and section 14 of the Act (harassment) on the grounds of race, national or ethnic origin and colour

Ratio Decidendi

Tribunal dismissed both delay motions because claimed prejudice stemmed from respondent inaction and there was no proof of significant prejudice from decision delay; tribunal found complainant established prima facie discrimination under s.7(b) and harassment under s.14 on grounds of race, national or ethnic origin and colour, but weighed credibility of witnesses and found respondent witnesses credible and complainant inconsistent; on balance of probabilities the prima facie discrimination did not occur as alleged and the complaint was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Complaint dismissed

Orders

  • Motion dated March 22, 2012 to dismiss for delay denied
  • Motion dated April 24, 2013 to dismiss for delay in rendering decision denied