Dunphy v. WestJet Airlines

Dunphy v. WestJet Airlines

Because the Commission adopted its investigator's report, which concluded there was no reasonable basis for allegations between January 2015 and November 22, 2016 and recommended referral only for events after November 2016, the Tribunal's inquiry is confined to the post-November 22, 2016 period; permitting the pre-November 22, 2016 allegations to remain would lack sufficient nexus, risk undue extension of the hearing, and be disproportionate, so those paragraphs are struck and the Complainant must refile a revised SOP limited accordingly.

Citation
2025 CHRT 33
Parties
Complainant: Timothy Dunphy; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: WestJet Airlines
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 April 2025
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Disability Discrimination / Ruling on Motion to Strike and Scope of Statement of Particulars
Outcome
Motion allowed in part; specified paragraphs of the Complainant's Statement of Particulars struck; request to strike paragraphs 136 and 138 dismissed; deadlines set for refiled SOPs and respondent SOP.
Legal Topics
Disability Accommodation, Scope of Complaint, Statement of Particulars, Tribunal Jurisdiction, Procedural Rules, Case Management
Source Language
English
Human Rights Administrative Law Employment Law Disability Accommodation Scope of Complaint Statement of Particulars Tribunal Jurisdiction Procedural Rules +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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Timothy Dunphy

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

WestJet Airlines

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Disability Discrimination / Ruling on Motion to Strike and Scope of Statement of Particulars

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraphs in the SOP should be struck because the Commission excluded those allegations when it referred the complaint to the Tribunal
  2. 2 Whether paragraphs in the SOP should be struck because they involve new allegations not related to the original complaint
  3. 3 Whether the SOP complies with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Rules of Procedure, 2021

Ratio Decidendi

Because the Commission adopted its investigator's report, which concluded there was no reasonable basis for allegations between January 2015 and November 22, 2016 and recommended referral only for events after November 2016, the Tribunal's inquiry is confined to the post-November 22, 2016 period; permitting the pre-November 22, 2016 allegations to remain would lack sufficient nexus, risk undue extension of the hearing, and be disproportionate, so those paragraphs are struck and the Complainant must refile a revised SOP limited accordingly.

Court Disposition

Motion allowed in part; specified paragraphs of the Complainant's Statement of Particulars struck; request to strike paragraphs 136 and 138 dismissed; deadlines set for refiled SOPs and respondent SOP.

Orders

  • Paragraphs struck from the Complainant's SOP: paragraphs 8–19, 29, 30, 39, 40, 49–51, 57, 59, 60, 62, 63, 68, 72–74, 83–92, the last four sentences of paragraph 95, paragraphs 97 and 100–112, the last sentence of paragraph 117, paragraphs 118–120, paragraphs 124–126, the last two sentences of paragraph 127, and...
  • The request to strike paragraphs 136 and 138 is dismissed.