Claimant's Motion Partially Allowed: Witness Relevance Decided

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Tribunal canadien des droits de la personne Citation: 2026 CHRT 29 Date: March 24, 2026 File No. : HR-DP-3026-24 Between: [NAME] Complainant - and - Canadian Human Rights Commission Commission - and - [COMPANY] Respondent Ruling Member: [NAME]

I. OVERVIEW [ 1 ] This is the third motion in this complaint and the first one brought by [COMPANY] ([NAME] or the Respondent). [NAME] wants me to strike five witnesses from the witness list of Mr. [NAME] (the Complainant). [NAME] says that one witness is unable to testify due to a medical condition; two witnesses are individuals who cannot be identified; and the other two witnesses, who are [NAME] executives, have no relevant evidence to provide. [ 2 ] [NAME] argues that all these witnesses have relevant evidence that will prove he experienced discrimination in his interactions with [NAME] in January 2019. He says that the employee with a medical condition can be summoned as a witness. He adds that the Tribunal can order [NAME] to make reasonable efforts to identify the two unnamed witnesses. Finally, he says that the two [NAME] executives have relevant information regarding policies and processes on anti-fraud and discrimination training, and that they have information about this complaint.

II.

DECISION [ 3 ] The motion is allowed in part. [NAME] will remain on the witness list because her evidence is arguably relevant and there is no indication that she will be unable to participate when the hearing takes place. [NAME] must make reasonable efforts to identify the teller ([NAME]) because she was an employee of the [COMPANY] and could have arguably relevant evidence that will assist the Tribunal. However, [NAME] is struck from the witness list because attempting to identify this individual would cause prejudice to the proceeding. Finally, [NAME] and [NAME] can be called by [NAME] because their testimony could be relevant as to whether [NAME] experienced adverse differential treatment in his three interactions with [NAME] employees, as well as to potential remedies.

III. ISSUES [ 4 ] The issues in this motion are: 1) [NAME] be struck from [NAME]’s witness list? 2) [NAME] and [NAME] be called as witnesses? 3) [NAME] and [NAME] be struck from [NAME]’s witness list? IV. ANALYSIS A. The Law [ 5 ] Parties before the Tribunal must be given a full and ample opportunity to present evidence and make representations (see section 50(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act , R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6 (CHRA)). This requires parties to share all arguably relevant information with one another as part of prehearing disclosure so that they know the case they need to meet (see Rules 18–20 and 24 of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Rules of Procedure,  2021, SOR/2021-137 (the “Rules of Procedure”); and [NAME] v. [NAME] , 2017 CHRT 28 at para 4 [ [NAME] ]). [ 6 ] Arguable relevance also applies to anticipated witness testimony (see [NAME] v. [NAME] , 2021 CHRT 13 at para 16 [ [NAME] ]). The threshold is not high (see [NAME] at para 6). When the Tribunal is asked to strike witnesses from a Statement of Particulars (SOP), it needs to determine if the witness testimony is arguably relevant to the issues that it needs to decide. It does this by looking at whether the testimony has a connection to the facts, questions of law, or remedy at issue in the complaint (see [NAME] at para 21). If the testimony is arguably relevant, it stays; if it is not, it can be struck. But striking on a preliminary basis should only be done in the clearest cases (see [NAME] v. [NAME] Canada , 2020 CHRT 27 at para 86 [ [NAME] ]). [ 7 ] The Tribunal is the master of its own procedure (see [NAME] v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration ), [1989] 1 SCR 560 at 568–9 [ [NAME] ]), and it may decide all questions of law or fact necessary to determining any matter under inquiry (see section 50(2) of the CHRA). This includes determining when it should decide a motion or issue in dispute (see Canada (CHRC) v. (Canada AG) , 2012 FC 445 at paras 129 and 144–147). To ensure that the parties have a full and ample opportunity to present their case, the Tribunal has a wide discretion to summon witnesses to a hearing (see subsection 50(3)(a) of the CHRA). The Tribunal must exercise this discretion in a way that is consistent with the objectives of the CHRA and the principles of natural justice, balancing the rights of all parties to a full and fair hearing (see [NAME] v. [NAME] , 2019 CHRT 4 (CanLII) at para 68 [ [NAME] ]; and subsections 48.9(1) of the CHRA). However, when the Tribunal decides to issue a summons, the task is not purely administrative (see [NAME] v. [NAME] Company , 2005 CHRT 35 (CanLII) at para 21 [ [NAME] ]). There must be a relevant connection between the evidence that is sought from a witness for whom a summons is required and the matter before the Tribunal (see [NAME] at para 21). (i) [NAME] is not struck from [NAME]’s witness list [ 8 ] [NAME] and [NAME] agree that [NAME]’s evidence is relevant to this case. [NAME] says that, if she can participate, it will lead her evidence. She is the teller who attended to [NAME] when he visited the branch to deposit a cheque in January 2019. However, [NAME] argues that [NAME] is no longer an employee of [NAME], and that she is suffering from a medical condition and unable to participate in these proceedings. [NAME] plans to lead evidence about the interaction between [NAME] had with [NAME] through another witness. [ 9 ] I will not strike [NAME] from [NAME]’s witness list because her evidence is relevant to this case (see [NAME] at para 21). She is one of the individuals alleged to have discriminated against [NAME] and may have information that will assist me in deciding this case. I understand that [NAME] has medical condition preventing her from participating in this proceeding at this time. However, the Tribunal has no information that she will be unable to participate in the future when the hearing takes place. [ 10 ] When hearing dates are scheduled, [NAME] can communicate them to [NAME]. She will then be in a position to advise as to whether she is medically unable to provide oral testimony at the hearing. If she is not able to, the parties can explore other options for obtaining her evidence since it is relevant to the issue that I need to decide. [NAME] require a summons for [NAME], it can request one from the Tribunal (see [NAME] at para 21). If [NAME] chooses not to call [NAME] as part of its case, the Tribunal will require [NAME] to confirm this well in advance of the hearing, to ensure that [NAME] can request a summons from the Tribunal and call her as part of his case should he wish to do so. If [NAME] is summoned, she will be made aware of the date and time of her testimony in this proceeding. (ii) [NAME] is struck from the witness list, but [NAME] needs to make reasonable efforts to identify [NAME] [ 11 ] Based on the parties’ submissions, [NAME] and [NAME] are not individuals whom either party can identify. [NAME] is described by [NAME] as the “unnamed teller working on January 17, 2019, at the [ADDRESS] branch.” Her evidence will be that, after [NAME] said he wanted to deposit a cheque, [NAME] asked him questions and required him to produce government-issued photo identification. She will also give evidence about her understanding of [NAME]’s Unconscious Bias Guide and its policy on authenticating customers in person. [ 12 ] [NAME] is described as “the unnamed stranger who may have been a customer on January 17, 2019, at the [ADDRESS] branch.” According to [NAME], this witness will also say that he heard [NAME] allegedly ask [NAME] to produce government-issued photo identification after he requested to deposit a cheque. [NAME] will also testify that he himself was not asked security questions, nor was he asked to produce photo identification before he was able to receive services from [NAME]. [ 13 ] [NAME] says that [NAME] and [NAME] must be struck from the witness list because, without knowing who they are, the parties cannot know the case they need to meet and cannot prepare accordingly. It says their testimony is speculative. [NAME] also argues that it has no obligation to identify witnesses for [NAME], and it relies on the legal principle that a party is not obligated to create evidence or a witness list for the opposing party. However, it did not rely on any authorities to support this argument. [ 14 ] [NAME] is not asking [NAME] to create evidence or his witness list. [NAME] and [NAME] have been on his witness list since the SOP was filed in September 2024, and he has taken steps to try to identify who these people are. He explained that, in November 2025, he made requests to [NAME] for various records through the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Document Act , S.C. 2000, c.

5. These requests were about the substance of this complaint in an effort to identify who these individuals are. [NAME] said that [NAME] failed to respond. As part of this motion, [NAME] is asking me to order [NAME] to explain what steps it took to identify those individuals. He relies on [NAME] v. [COMPANY] of Nova Scotia , 2022 CHRT 34 [ [NAME] ] to support his position. [NAME] did not address [NAME] or the proposed approach in its reply submissions. [ 15 ] To ensure that this case proceeds to a hearing as informally and expeditiously as possible, [NAME] must take reasonable steps to identify [NAME], the unnamed teller, as she may have evidence that is arguably relevant to the main issue in dispute (see [NAME] at para 123). She was an employee of the [COMPANY], working on January 17, 2019. [NAME] should verify whether it has records of who worked that day and determine if it can identify who this person is. If [NAME] can identify the teller, it must share the person’s name and the individual’s last known contact information with [NAME] so that he can contact her about this proceeding. If [NAME] cannot identify her after making reasonable efforts, she will be removed from the witness list. [ 16 ] I will not order [NAME] to take any steps to identify [NAME], and he is struck from [NAME]’s witness list. It is not reasonable to expect that [NAME] would have a record of the individuals who were present at the [COMPANY] in 2019, and asking [NAME] to carry out such a search would be impractical and cause further delay and prejudice to a proceeding that has already taken too long to get to a hearing (see [NAME] at para 84). (iii) [NAME] and [NAME] can be called as witnesses [ 17 ] I understand that [NAME] is [NAME]’s Chief Risk Officer and responsible for its global operations, and that [NAME] is [NAME]’s Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer. [NAME] filed his SOP, both of these individuals were listed as possible witnesses. [ 18 ] [NAME] argues that these two witnesses “ likely do not know anything about [[NAME]’s] case.” It also argues that neither is within [NAME]’s control and that including them as part of this proceeding is disproportionate to the matters at issue. It says that if they are summoned to testify, it will bring a motion to have the summons quashed. [ 19 ] [NAME] can call both these witnesses because it is not a clear-cut case that their testimony should be struck at a preliminary stage (see [NAME] at para 86). Both these witnesses are fact witnesses, and the law is clear: there is no propriety in a witness (see Harmony Shipping Co. v. David , [1979] 3 All E.R. 177, [1979] W.L.R. 1380 (C.A.) at 1384 (W.L.R.); and [NAME] v. [COMPANY] . 1988 CanLII 119 (CHRT)). The Tribunal needs to hear from witnesses who can provide evidence about the issues in dispute, regardless of which party calls them. Presumably, if neither [NAME] nor [NAME] had any arguably relevant information about this case, [NAME] would have said so. Instead, it says they “likely” do not have information. [ 20 ] However, the testimony of [NAME] and [NAME] will be limited to their knowledge of [NAME]’s complaint and any actions that [NAME] took as a result of his complaint. They can also be asked about the documents that have been disclosed in this case that are within their sphere of knowledge based on their respective roles at [NAME]. They will tell the Tribunal what they know. This is all that is required of them. But the questions they are asked must relate to the facts and issues raised or the relief being sought as part of this complaint. [ 21 ] This case is about whether [NAME] experienced adverse differential treatment under section 5 of the CHRA, based on his interactions with [NAME] employees in January 2019 (see [NAME] v. [COMPANY] , 2026 CHRT 1 at para 3 [ [NAME] 2 ]). This is not an inquiry into whether there is or was systemic discrimination at [NAME], nor is it about the adequacy of [NAME]’s training for employees (see [NAME] 2 at para 22). I have also said that this case is not about how access cards and personal identification numbers can be manipulated (see [NAME] v. [COMPANY] , 2025 CHRT 64 at para 46 [ [NAME] 1 ]), nor is it about whether there was fraud at [NAME] branches in Richmond, British Columbia (see [NAME] 1 at paras 51 and 54). This means that the parties cannot ask the witnesses to provide testimony on any issues that I have deemed to be out of scope based on previous rulings. I cannot allow the parties to detract from the core issues in dispute in a case where SOPs were filed in September 2024—more than 18 months ago. The parties and the Tribunal continue to expend an inordinate amount of time and resources on motions regarding disclosure and witnesses, and this is causing prejudice to this case (see [NAME] at para 8). The evidence in this complaint is more than seven years old. Some witnesses cannot be located and some no longer work for [NAME]. None of these issues will resolve with time; it will only get worse. [ 22 ] The Tribunal must conduct proceedings as informally and expeditiously as the requirements of natural justice and the Rules of Procedure allow (see section 48.9(1) of the CHRA and Rule 5 of the Rules of Procedure). For me to adjudicate this case fairly and efficiently, the parties must respect the rules of disclosure based on the case they put forward in their SOP. Allowing this proceeding to venture into all potential evidentiary avenues will paralyze the Tribunal to the detriment of the parties and other litigants waiting for their cases to be heard (see [NAME] v. [NAME] of Canada , 2025 CHRT 57 at para 46). The parties will be expected to approach their examination of witnesses in an organized fashion and to respect the time estimates that they provided with their will-says. They will, of course, have an opportunity to object to questions, and I will hear from the parties before ruling on the admissibility of any evidence (see [NAME] at para 84).

V.

ORDER [ 23 ] The motion is allowed in part. [NAME] can remain on [NAME]’s witness list. [NAME] is struck from [NAME]’s witness list. [NAME] and [NAME] can be called as witnesses, with limits placed on their testimony. [ 24 ] [NAME] must take reasonable steps to identify [NAME], the teller, and communicate its efforts to identify her to [NAME] and the Tribunal by April 2, 2026. If she cannot be identified, she will be struck from the witness list. Signed by [NAME] Tribunal Member Ottawa, Ontario March 24, 2026 Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Parties of Record File No. : HR-DP-3026-24 Style of Cause: [NAME] v. [COMPANY] of the Tribunal Dated: March 24, 2026 Motion dealt with in writing without appearance of parties Written representations by: [NAME] , Self-represented Complainant [NAME] , for the Respondent