Lafrenière v. Via Rail Canada Inc.

Lafrenière v. Via Rail Canada Inc.

The Tribunal has limited ancillary power to order medical examinations but will only do so where strictly necessary; here the respondent failed to justify the necessity or relevance of a current medical assessment to allegations from 2012, and the order would unduly invade the complainant's privacy and security of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2017 CHRT 29
Parties
Complainant: Serge Lafrenière; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Via Rail Canada Inc.
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Discrimination (disability) / Interim Ruling on Motion for Medical Assessment
Outcome
Respondent's motion for a medical assessment dismissed.
Legal Topics
Medical Examination Orders, Procedural Fairness, Disability Discrimination, Burden of Proof, Ancillary Jurisdiction
Source Language
english
Human Rights Administrative Law Employment Law Privacy Law Medical Examination Orders Procedural Fairness Disability Discrimination Burden of Proof +1 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 5 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

Human Rights Discrimination (disability) / Interim Ruling on Motion for Medical Assessment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to order an independent medical examination
  2. 2 Whether compelling a medical examination would infringe the complainant's privacy and security of the person
  3. 3 Whether a medical assessment at this stage is relevant to allegations dating to 2012

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal has limited ancillary power to order medical examinations but will only do so where strictly necessary; here the respondent failed to justify the necessity or relevance of a current medical assessment to allegations from 2012, and the order would unduly invade the complainant's privacy and security of the person, therefore the motion is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Respondent's motion for a medical assessment dismissed.

Orders

  • Respondent's motion for a medical assessment dismissed.