Two Recent CHRT Rulings Rein in Over-Broad Human Rights Litigation—What Employers Should Know

Quick Hits

• In two May 2025 decisions, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal criticized the litigation tactics in Richards v. Correctional Service Canada, providing a roadmap for respondents to manage overly ambitious human rights complaints.
• The Tribunal’s rulings emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and proportionality, rejecting the inclusion of marginally relevant evidence and the misuse of privileged communications in human rights litigation.
• The decisions underscore the need for specific allegations, timely objections to new evidence, and the protection of settlement discussions to maintain a fair and efficient adjudication process.

In two May 2025 decisions arising out of Richards v. Correctional Service Canada (CSC), the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT or Tribunal) criticized this type of litigation conduct and, in the process, provided a roadmap that respondents can follow to curb overly ambitious complaints. Although the rulings do not arise in an employment context, they are worth close attention by any employer intent on keeping a human rights proceeding proportionate and manageable.

Background—A Complaint With Individual and ‘Systemic’ Dimensions

Ryan Richards, a Black Muslim man incarcerated in federal institutions, filed four CHRT complaints alleging that CSC exposed him to excessive force, segregation, discriminatory programming, harassment, and retaliation from 2010-2020. Although the complaints focus on what happened to Richards personally, the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC or Commission) described the case as a systemic challenge to CSC’s treatment of Black inmates.

That tension—individual allegations advanced under the banner of systemic discrimination—set the stage for the Tribunal’s two most recent rulings.

1. 2025 CHRT 35 (May 7, 2025)—Privileged Email Misused and No Third Attempt at a Laptop Order

In this decision, the Commission supported Richards’ third request that CSC be compelled to let him keep a laptop computer in his cell to assist in litigating the case. To bolster that motion, the Commission included an email from CSC counsel, who had said that the email was “not to be shared with the Tribunal.”

The Tribunal dismissed the motion on its merits—finding that two sets of paper disclosure and a read-only laptop available in the hearing room were adequate—but it went further, disapproving the Commission’s use of an arguably settlement-privileged email in these terms:

“I have not, however, considered the disputed email in my decision to dismiss Mr. Richards’ and the Commission’s motion. In my view, interpreting the law of privilege in the way the Commission suggests condones behaviour that the Tribunal has no interest in rewarding in this or any other case. I agree with CSC that the Commission’s disclosure of another party’s proposal sent in an attempt to resolve an issue—whether procedural or not—should not be encouraged by the Tribunal. This type of practice falls short of what the Tribunal expects of parties who have been directed to work together to resolve procedural issues and who are trying to negotiate in good faith.

“I previously directed the parties to recall the principle of proportionality and to choose their battles wisely…. [CHRT reference omitted.] The parties are expected to focus their efforts, not to inflame one another over communications that were shared in an atmosphere of trust to resolve a procedural matter—whether formally privileged or not. The dispute between the parties that followed the Commission’s decision to include the email has diverted the resources of counsel—and those of the Tribunal—at a time when all should be preparing for the hearing that is set to resume in just over a month. Such an approach, which will discourage settlement or attempts to negotiate in the future, does not favour the interests of Mr. Richards or other litigants, whose files are waiting while the Tribunal expends resources in dealing with this dispute.”

2. 2025 CHRT 57 (May 26, 2025)—Proposed ‘Systemic’ Witnesses Excluded

After Richards had already testified, he and the Commission sought to add two inmates—Renford Farrier and Nathanael Williams—to the witness list. Their “will-say” statements spanned fourteen and seventeen subject matters respectively, ranging from historic use-of-force incidents to dietary issues at institutions where Richards had never been housed. CSC objected that the evidence was marginally relevant, vague, and would balloon the hearing.

The Tribunal conducted a careful probative-value versus prejudice assessment and refused to hear the witnesses. Key findings in this regard included the following:

• “Finding a connection to the issues in dispute, however marginal, is not sufficient without measuring the value of the proposed evidence against the costs of its admission.”
• “I do not find that the proposed evidence is probative of the central questions… Incidents involving other inmates… at different times, in separate institutions… are not sufficiently similar to the facts at issue.”
• “Adding these witnesses at this stage causes prejudice to CSC… and jeopardises the effective conduct of what have already been complex and lengthy proceedings, with little demonstrable value for the determination of the main issues.”

The Tribunal underscored that a human rights hearing “is not a commission of inquiry” and that parties may not “reserve their right to add witnesses at any stage, without regard to their obligations under the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.”

The Tribunal noted that the will-says resembled “a discovery rather than an examination”. With no dates, names, or documents, CSC would meet the evidence for the first time mid-hearing, forcing document searches and potential adjournments. Moreover, Richards already had nine fact witnesses and an expert to testify about anti-Black bias in corrections; the incremental value of two broad-brush inmate narratives did not justify the burden.

Key Takeaways and Conclusion

The two rulings offer concrete guidance on defending against sprawling human rights cases.

Demanding Particulars

The Tribunal criticized the Canadian Human Rights Commission for broad allegations and inadequate particulars. Respondents may want to press for specific dates, locations, actors, and documents, and place the burden on the complainant to justify relevance.

Invoking Procedural Fairness When the Scope Shifts

If new witnesses or theories surface mid-hearing, respondents may want to object immediately and quantify the prejudice: document retrieval burdens, faded memories, added witnesses, and increased hearing length.

Using Proportionality as a Shield

The Tribunal is receptive to arguments that even relevant evidence can be excluded if the cost to fairness and efficiency is too high. Respondents may want to consider framing objections in terms of proportionality—a foundational principle behind the Tribunal’s Rules and the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Protecting Privilege and Settlement Discussions

The Tribunal has disapproved weaponizing arguably privileged communications that seek to resolve a procedural issue. Employers may want to mark settlement offers “Without Prejudice” and object if the material appears in a public filing.

Reinforcing the Tribunal’s Limited Mandate

Quoting the Tribunal can be powerful: “Turning proceedings into a commission of inquiry is inconsistent with the principles guiding human rights tribunals.” Respondents may want to use that language to steer the hearing back to the complainant’s allegations.

These Tribunal decisions are a wake-up call for any party—particularly the Commission—tempted to litigate human rights cases as sweeping public inquiries. For employers, the rulings are equally valuable. They confirm that respondents are entitled to procedural fairness, that relevance must be real rather than theoretical, and that the Tribunal will not tolerate tactics that derail efficient adjudication. Equipped with these precedents, employers can push back confidently against over-broad complaints and keep human rights litigation focused where it belongs: on the discrete allegations actually in dispute.

Ogletree Deakins’ Montréal office will continue to monitor developments and will post updates on the Cross-Border blog as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts