Lafrenière v. Via Rail Canada Inc.

Lafrenière v. Via Rail Canada Inc.

The Tribunal excluded Dr. Tremblay's report as inadmissible under s.50(3)(c) of the CHRA because it failed the Mohan/White Burgess threshold: the report lacked demonstrated impartiality and independence (expert had acted as part of respondent's defence team, remained in courtroom, and relied principally on respondent materials), was not necessary or sufficiently relevant to the historical facts (prepared six years after events without assessing the complainant), and the prejudicial effect of admitting the report outweighed any probative value following a cost-benefit analysis.

Citation
2018 CHRT 19
Parties
Complainant: Serge Lafrenière; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Via Rail Canada Inc.
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Canadian Human Rights Act Complaint / Interim Ruling on Admissibility of Expert Evidence
Outcome
Motions by the Commission and Complainant allowed; expert report excluded.
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Expert Evidence Admissibility, Procedural Fairness, Privilege, Cost Benefit Gatekeeping
Source Language
English
Human Rights Administrative Law Evidence Law Employment Law Disability Discrimination Expert Evidence Admissibility Procedural Fairness Privilege +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 10 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 / Interim Ruling on Admissibility of Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What are the eligibility criteria for an expert report?
  2. 2 When should components of the expert's duty be analyzed (admissibility or weight)?
  3. 3 Is a voir dire required before determining admissibility?

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal excluded Dr. Tremblay's report as inadmissible under s.50(3)(c) of the CHRA because it failed the Mohan/White Burgess threshold: the report lacked demonstrated impartiality and independence (expert had acted as part of respondent's defence team, remained in courtroom, and relied principally on respondent materials), was not necessary or sufficiently relevant to the historical facts (prepared six years after events without assessing the complainant), and the prejudicial effect of admitting the report outweighed any probative value following a cost-benefit analysis.

Court Disposition

Motions by the Commission and Complainant allowed; expert report excluded.

Orders

  • Dismiss the expert report of Dr. Martin Tremblay as inadmissible under s.50(3)(c) of the Canadian Human Rights Act
  • Dr. Martin Tremblay shall not be heard by the Tribunal on the excluded report