Craig Thomas Foye

The applicant sought to add her former supervisor, Barbara Schacher, as an individual respondent to her human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and family status.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing the allegations related to standard management functions and post-termination conduct outside the employment context.

Applying the three-part test from Smyth, the Tribunal granted the request, finding that the allegations against the proposed respondent were central to the application and could support a finding of a Code violation.

Several public interest organizations sought leave to intervene as friends of the court on a motion to strike a constitutional application alleging that federal and provincial housing policies violated sections 7 and 15 of the Charter by failing to ensure adequate housing.

The proposed interveners argued they could provide perspectives relating to poverty, disability, housing policy, international human rights obligations, and constitutional remedies.

The court emphasized that intervention on a Rule 21 motion is exceptional and requires a showing that the intervener will make a useful legal contribution beyond the parties’ submissions without prejudicing the proceeding.

Interventions focused primarily on social context or policy impacts were rejected because the motion concerned a narrow legal question regarding whether the application disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

The court granted limited intervention status to three groups with specific expertise relevant to Charter interpretation, international human rights law, and constitutional remedies, while dismissing the remaining intervention motions.

The respondents in a human rights complaint regarding accessible transit services brought motions for disclosure and particulars prior to filing their responding pleadings.

The Board of Inquiry held that the motions were not premature, as the rules permit such requests at any stage of the proceeding.

The Board ordered the Commission to provide particulars regarding alleged physical barriers to transit access and to disclose a Transit Access Survey and its responses, finding them arguably relevant to the respondents' undue hardship defence.

However, the Board declined to order the complainants to produce medical reports or further particulars of certain other allegations at the pleadings stage, finding that sufficient information had been provided to enable the respondents to plead.