Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Tribunal dismissed a disclosure motion in a human rights inquiry, finding the requested documents largely related to non-referred allegations and were disproportionate.
The Federal Court set aside two Commission screening decisions, holding that the Commission unreasonably narrowed harassment under s. 14(1) CHRA and mishandled the yelling incident.
The request for reconsideration is dismissed because there was no denial of natural justice or procedural fairness, no substantial change in circumstances (Ramadan and the volume of disclosure were known or foreseeable and did not overlap the original deadlines), and reasonable alternatives (paper disclosure, limited computer access, adjournment or extension) remain available; security considerations justify denying 24-hour laptop access in a cell.
Source excerpt
The Tribunal refused the parties' joint request to bifurcate all three complaints into separate liability and remedy hearings because bifurcation would be disproportionate, inefficient, and an unreasonable use of Tribunal resources; instead the Tribunal ordered a sequential hearing plan driven by factual overlap (GAC heard first with full presentation of liability and remedy evidence but with final remedy determinations on mitigation and loss deferred until after the IRCC decision, IRCC heard next with full liability and remedy findings subject to limited reservation for future-loss apportion…
Source excerpt
The court dismissed the application for judicial review, holding the Commission's dismissal of the complaint as 'without merit' fell within a range of reasonable outcomes; the HRO's investigation and report did not contain flaws so fundamental as to vitiate the Commission's decision and the applicant did not establish reviewable error warranting intervention.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court dismissed Canada’s motion to stay Hudson, finding her systemic racism class claim distinct from the certified Greenwood and AMPMQ actions.
The court struck Skyllar’s amended claim against UBC, finding the non-defamation claims were academic matters outside jurisdiction and the defamation claim was absolutely privileged.
The motion to join is granted because the complaints arise from the same manager-employee relationship, contain inextricably linked allegations, share common incidents and witnesses, and joining them at this early stage prevents duplication, reduces trauma to the complainant, avoids inconsistent findings and will not cause appreciable delay or unfair prejudice to the respondent; any potential prejudice is outweighed by the public interest and the ability of each respondent to call evidence and have liability assessed separately.
Source excerpt
Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the complaint because the CHRA's provisions and caselaw support a broad, fact‑driven approach to who may be a "victim" and the record contains disputed material facts critical to determining standing and victim status; dismissal on jurisdictional grounds at the preliminary stage is not appropriate where key facts are contested and must be resolved at a hearing on the merits.
Source excerpt
The Tribunal found on a balance of probabilities that pregnancy-related sick leave was one factor in the April 6, 2018 dismissal given the temporal proximity of absences and the dismissal message, the employer provided no contemporaneous performance-based justification, and the employer did not establish a s.15 or s.65 defence; accordingly discrimination on the grounds of sex (pregnancy) and disability was established and remedies under s.53(2) were ordered.
Source excerpt
Explore more
