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
Case management ruling in a CHRA proceeding about witness objections, document production, and pre-hearing admissibility of third-party reports.
The Tribunal excluded two late-added witnesses, finding their broad proposed testimony too vague and prejudicial to the fairness and efficient management of the hearing.
The Tribunal dismissed Telus’s motion to dismiss, finding the settlement did not clearly resolve the workplace discrimination allegations and delay had not been shown to make a hearing unfair.
The complaint is dismissed as abandoned because the Complainant, without explanation, failed to respond to repeated Tribunal communications, failed to meet set deadlines, and the Tribunal is satisfied notice was provided; dismissal is authorized by the Tribunal's rules and s.48.9(1) of the Act.
Source excerpt
The complaint is dismissed as abandoned because the Complainant failed, without explanation, to respond to repeated Tribunal communications and deadlines despite the Tribunal's attempts to contact them by telephone, email and courier, and no evidence was provided to justify continued toleration of non‑participation; accordingly the Tribunal accepted the Respondent's submission and dismissed the matter under its Rules.
Source excerpt
The complaint was dismissed because it was a direct challenge to unambiguous statutory eligibility criteria in the Indian Act; section 5 of the Canadian Human Rights Act does not permit the Tribunal to adjudicate direct challenges to federal legislation and such challenges must be brought in the courts.
Source excerpt
The Tribunal has the power to bifurcate but dismissed the respondent's motion because the jurisdictional questions are fact‑laden and intertwined with the merits and evidence; proceeding to a single comprehensive hearing is more efficient and fair given the disputed facts, overlapping witnesses and risk of prejudice or duplication.
Source excerpt
Applying the arguable relevance standard, the Tribunal found pages 1–33 and pages 36–41 of Brunelle's notes are not arguably relevant to Constantinescu's complaint and upheld those redactions; however, the Tribunal ordered disclosure of the titles on pages 34 and 35 ("Daniel Parent (2) 14.11.14" and "Parent") because the titles provide contextual relevance to disclosed content, and ordered the respondent to remove those redactions and re-serve the amended documents by October 16, 2020.
Source excerpt
Because the alleged discrimination occurred while the complainant was on the road and is not closely linked to a single location, and because a dual-venue hearing balances the parties' competing interests by reducing travel and disruption while ensuring each party can present its case fully, the Tribunal ordered a dual-venue hearing: Calgary for the complainant's witnesses and Winnipeg for the respondent's witnesses, with videoconferencing available and logistical arrangements to be made by the Tribunal.
Source excerpt
The recusal motion was dismissed because the presiding member concluded his conduct did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias; however, the member resigned and asked the Tribunal Chair to assign another member or panel to the case in the interests of justice to avoid further delay and facilitate possible narrowing or alternative resolution of issues.
Source excerpt
Explore more
