Lafrenière v. Via Rail Canada Inc.

Lafrenière v. Via Rail Canada Inc.

Only the ground of disability will be considered at the hearing; the Respondent’s motion to strike is dismissed, but the Tribunal limits the use of certain paragraphs: paragraphs 19–26 and 27–38 are relevant and admissible to prove disciplinary actions during or close to the alleged disability period; paragraphs 4–9 and 10–18 and 39–53 may be referenced solely for context and cannot be used to establish Respondent’s responsibility; a specific portion of paragraph 18 concerning medication and a doctor’s order (March 1, 2012 to June 7, 2012) is relevant and admissible; Tribunal reserves jurisdiction if the Complainant seeks to amend his Statement of Particulars.

Citation
2017 CHRT 9
Parties
Complainant: Serge Lafrenière; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Via Rail Canada Inc.
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Canadian Human Rights Act Complaint / Pre Hearing Interim Ruling on Motion to Strike
Outcome
Respondent’s motion to strike dismissed with limitations; certain paragraphs limited to contextual use while others are admissible and will be heard
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Sexual Orientation (initially Alleged), Motion to Strike/pleadings, Disclosure and Amendment of Particulars
Source Language
English
Human Rights Employment Law Administrative Law Disability Discrimination Sexual Orientation (initially Alleged) Motion to Strike/pleadings Disclosure and Amendment of Particulars

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Serge Lafrenière

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Via Rail Canada Inc.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Canadian Human Rights Act Complaint / Pre Hearing Interim Ruling on Motion to Strike

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Which prohibited grounds of discrimination will be heard by the Tribunal
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal can dismiss part of the complaint before the hearing
  3. 3 Whether paragraphs 4 to 53 of the Statement of Particulars should be struck or limited

Ratio Decidendi

Only the ground of disability will be considered at the hearing; the Respondent’s motion to strike is dismissed, but the Tribunal limits the use of certain paragraphs: paragraphs 19–26 and 27–38 are relevant and admissible to prove disciplinary actions during or close to the alleged disability period; paragraphs 4–9 and 10–18 and 39–53 may be referenced solely for context and cannot be used to establish Respondent’s responsibility; a specific portion of paragraph 18 concerning medication and a doctor’s order (March 1, 2012 to June 7, 2012) is relevant and admissible; Tribunal reserves jurisdiction if the Complainant seeks to amend his Statement of Particulars.

Court Disposition

Respondent’s motion to strike dismissed with limitations; certain paragraphs limited to contextual use while others are admissible and will be heard

Orders

  • Dismisses Respondent’s motion to strike
  • Paragraphs 4 to 9 may be referred to at the hearing solely for context but not to establish the Respondent’s responsibility