Human Rights Complaints Consolidated into Single Inquiry

[NAME] Tribunal Tribunal canadien des droits de la personne Citation: 2026 CHRT 36 Date: April 9, 2026 File Nos. : HR-DP-2856-22 & HR-DP-3208-26 Between: [NAME]. Complainant - and - [NAME] Commission Commission - and - Correctional Service Canada Respondent Ruling Member: [NAME] [ 1 ] This is a ruling on a motion that a single inquiry be held into two complaints filed by [NAME]. (the “Complainant”) against the [NAME] (the “Respondent” or the [NAME]). For the following reasons, I grant the motion. [ 2 ] The first complaint, HR-DP-2856-22 (“Complaint #1”), was filed in June 2019. [NAME]. states in the complaint that she is an Indigenous transgender woman in the [NAME]’s custody and that her complaint concerns a gender-dysphoria assessment conducted and prepared by a [NAME]-contracted psychiatrist. [NAME]. alleges that the psychiatrist’s conduct and report were discriminatory. [ 3 ] The [NAME] Commission (the [NAME]) referred Complaint #1 to the [NAME] Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) in June 2022. [ 4 ] [NAME].’s Statement of Particulars (SOP) for Complaint #1 included allegations that the [NAME] systematically neglected and deprioritized gender-affirming care to her and other gender-diverse patients in its custody. The [NAME] filed a motion to strike the paragraphs referring to those allegations, which I granted on May 23, 2025 (see [NAME]. v. [NAME] , 2025 CHRT 56 (the “Scope Ruling”)). I found that there was no nexus between the complaint and the broader allegations regarding gender-affirming care found in those paragraphs. I ordered that the paragraphs be struck. [ 5 ] On May 28, 2025, five days after the Scope Ruling, [NAME]. filed a new complaint with the [NAME] (“Complaint #2”). The [NAME] referred it to the Tribunal on January 26, 2026 (Tribunal file HR-DP-3208-26). [ 6 ] As [NAME]. describes in her motion, Complaint #2 alleges that the [NAME] failed to provide and facilitate timely and non-discriminatory access to essential gender-affirming health care to her. She refers to ongoing discrimination after the incidents involving the psychiatrist referred to in Complaint #1. She describes the discrimination as systemic in nature. [ 7 ] In effect, Complaint #2 consists of allegations that I struck in the Scope Ruling. [NAME]. acknowledges this in her motion, stating that she filed Complaint #2 to “properly frame the allegations of ongoing and systemic discrimination which had been struck from the SOP for Complaint #1 and to clarify and further detail the facts underlying these allegations up to the present.” [ 8 ] [NAME]. states that the [NAME] exercised its discretion under section 49 of the [NAME] Act , R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6 (the CHRA) and referred Complaint #2 to the Tribunal for inquiry, over the [NAME]’s objections. [ 9 ] Considering the connection between the two complaints, [NAME]. has requested that they be joined and case-managed as a single complaint, with single consolidated SOPs. The complaints would be heard together and treated as one complaint. [ 10 ] The [NAME] did not take a position on [NAME].’s motion to consolidate the complaints. Its submissions centred on the [NAME]’s handling of Complaint #2. It claims that the [NAME] decided not to investigate the complaint, having “presupposed” that it had enough information to make a referral. The [NAME] lists what it views as several flaws in the [NAME]’s decision and maintains that the [NAME]’s investigative and gatekeeping functions were bypassed in a manner that rendered its process “whimsical and symbolic.” The [NAME] also explains its reasons for deciding not to seek judicial review of the [NAME]’s decision to refer Complaint #2 to the Tribunal. [ 11 ] Irrespective of any issues the [NAME] may have with the [NAME]’s decision-making process, it is not the Tribunal’s role to review [NAME] decisions, a fact that the [NAME] readily acknowledges in its submissions. [ 12 ] However, the Tribunal does have the authority to direct that multiple complaints be dealt with in a single inquiry, even if the [NAME] refers them to the Tribunal separately (see [NAME] v. [COMPANY] , 2022 CHRT 1 at para 18). [ 13 ] Some of the criteria for the Tribunal to consider when deciding whether to join complaints into a single inquiry include the following:

1) The public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings, including considerations of expense, delay, the convenience of witnesses, reducing the need for the repetition of evidence, and the risk of inconsistent results;

2) The potential prejudice to any of the parties and to the public in general that could result from a single hearing, including the lengthening of the hearing and the potential for confusion that may result from the introduction of evidence that may not relate to the allegations specifically involving one complaint or the other; and 3) Whether there are common issues of fact or law. (see [NAME] v. [NAME] Commission & Employment and Social Development Canada , 2025 CHRT 22 at paras 11–13). [ 14 ] I am satisfied that all three criteria are met. There are clearly common issues of fact and law. The [NAME] contends that [NAME]. has abusively inserted elements of Complaint #1 into Complaint #2 to artificially “manufacture overlap that would not otherwise exist,” merely to justify the consolidation. The [NAME] says that the similarities in facts and witnesses presented between both complaints are contrived rather than inherent. [ 15 ] I disagree. I accept [NAME].’s response that, when read together, the two complaints present a continuous narrative over a period of years with an overlapping set of witnesses, all of which takes place against the same legal and policy framework. Complaint #2 covers a period not touched by Complaint #1, but it also covers issues that overlap in time. [NAME]. explains that she proposes to call the same witnesses for the two cases because they are the health professionals who have dealt with her throughout both periods. [ 16 ] Given the common factual and legal issues, it is clearly in the public interest that a multiplicity of proceedings be avoided. The only prejudice that the [NAME] seems to raise in its submissions is its contention that it is facing “unsubstantiated systemic discrimination claims requiring significant resources to investigate and litigate.” However, this alleged prejudice relates to the [NAME]’s decision to refer Complaint #2 to the Tribunal in the first place. Now that the referral has occurred, the [NAME] will have to respond to these “unsubstantiated claims” whether the complaints are consolidated or not. Joining them will at least enable the [NAME] to address both complaints in a more efficient manner. I do not see any prejudice in that and, if anything, the total length of the hearing into the complaints will be shorter than if two separate hearings with overlapping and similar evidence were held.

I.

ORDER [ 17 ] I grant [NAME].’s request. [ 18 ] I order that:

1) Complaint #1 and Complaint #2 are joined and will be case-managed as a single complaint; 2) [NAME]. will amend her SOP from Complaint #1 to incorporate the particulars regarding Complaint #2;

3) The [NAME] will amend its SOP from Complaint #1 to incorporate its response regarding Complaint #2; 4) [NAME]. will amend her Reply from Complaint #1 to incorporate any replies to the [NAME]’s particulars regarding Complaint #2; and 5) The consolidated complaints will be heard together in a single hearing and treated as a single complaint. [ 19 ] Dates for filing the amended SOPs and Reply will be provided to the parties by the Tribunal in a separate correspondence. Signed by [NAME] Tribunal Member Ottawa, ON April 9, 2026 [NAME] Tribunal Parties of Record File Nos. : HR-DP-2856-22 & HR-DP-3208-26. Style of Cause: [NAME]. v. Correctional Service Canada Ruling of the Tribunal Dated: April 9, 2026 Motion dealt with in writing without appearance of parties Written representations by: [NAME] , for the Complainant [NAME] and [NAME] , for the Respondents