Tribunal Decision: Retaliation Complaint Against Onion Lake Cree Nation

OUTCOME: Allowed in [NAME] [NAME] Tribunal Tribunal canadien des droits de la personne Citation: 2024 [NAME] 107 Date: September 26, 2024 File No. : HR-DP-2946-23 Between: [RESPONDENT] - and - [NAME] [NAME] Commission Commission - and - [RESPONDENT] Respondent Ruling Member: [NAME] \o "1-3" \h \z \u I. OVERVIEW PAGEREF _Toc178248956 \h 1 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003100370038003200340038003900350036000000 A. The Motion to Strike PAGEREF _Toc178248957 \h 1 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003100370038003200340038003900350037000000 B. The Request to Amend the Statements of Particulars PAGEREF _Toc178248958 \h 2 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003100370038003200340038003900350038000000 II.

DECISION PAGEREF _Toc178248959 \h 2 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003100370038003200340038003900350039000000 III. ISSUES PAGEREF _Toc178248960 \h 2 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003100370038003200340038003900360030000000 IV. MOTION TO STRIKE - DETAILS OF THE DISPUTED ALLEGATIONS PAGEREF _Toc178248961 \h 3 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003100370038003200340038003900360031000000 A. The Complaints in 2019 PAGEREF _Toc178248962 \h 3 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003100370038003200340038003900360032000000 B. The Employment Complaints PAGEREF _Toc178248963 \h 4 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003100370038003200340038003900360033000000 (i) Employment Complaint #1 PAGEREF _Toc178248964 \h 4 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003100370038003200340038003900360034000000 (ii) Employment Complaint #2 PAGEREF _Toc178248965 \h 5 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003100370038003200340038003900360035000000 V. REQUEST TO AMEND STATEMENTS OF PARTICULARS – THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT PAGEREF _Toc178248966 \h 5 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003100370038003200340038003900360036000000 VI. ANALYSIS PAGEREF _Toc178248967 \h 6 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003100370038003200340038003900360037000000 A. What principles guide the Tribunal in deciding whether to strike allegations from a SOP or whether to allow amendments to a SOP? PAGEREF _Toc178248968 \h 6 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003100370038003200340038003900360038000000 B. Should the disputed allegations be struck? PAGEREF _Toc178248971 \h 8 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003100370038003200340038003900370031000000 (i) Should the allegations about “drinking parties” on the [RESPONDENT]’s property be struck? PAGEREF _Toc178248972 \h 8 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003100370038003200340038003900370032000000 (ii) Should the employment allegations be struck? PAGEREF _Toc178248973 \h 9 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003100370038003200340038003900370033000000 C. Should the parties’ Statements of Particulars be amended? PAGEREF _Toc178248974 \h 12 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003100370038003200340038003900370034000000 VII.

ORDER PAGEREF _Toc178248975 \h 13 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003100370038003200340038003900370035000000 I. OVERVIEW [ 1 ] [RESPONDENT], the [RESPONDENT], is an [NAME] who identifies as [NAME]. [RESPONDENT] (“[NAME]”), the Respondent, is a [RESPONDENT] community near Lloydminster, which is on the border of Saskatchewan and Alberta. Ms. [RESPONDENT] owns property next to [NAME]’s reserve lands. [ 2 ] Ms. [RESPONDENT] filed a [NAME] [NAME] complaint against [RESPONDENT] in 2017 (the “Original Complaint”). The parties settled the Original Complaint. [ 3 ] Ms. [RESPONDENT] filed a further [NAME] [NAME] complaint in October 2020 (the “Retaliation Complaint”), alleging that [NAME] had retaliated against her for making the Original Complaint. The [NAME] [NAME] Commission (the “Commission”) referred the Retaliation Complaint to the Tribunal in May 2023 for inquiry. [ 4 ] This ruling determines two issues related to the parties’ Statements of Particulars (SOPs): the Respondent’s motion to strike paragraphs in the [RESPONDENT]’s and the Commission’s SOPs and a request from the [RESPONDENT] and the Commission to amend their SOPs. A. The Motion to Strike [ 5 ] [NAME]’s motion requests that seven allegations in the SOPs be struck. [ 6 ] Five of the disputed allegations in Ms. [RESPONDENT]’s SOP are alleged to have occurred in 2019. The allegations were not included in the Retaliation Complaint and predate the first allegations of discrimination in the Retaliation Complaint. Ms. [RESPONDENT] agrees to withdraw four of these allegations but submits that one of them should not be struck. [ 7 ] The two other disputed allegations refer to [NAME]’s interference with Ms. [RESPONDENT]’s employment. This interference is alleged to have occurred in 2021, with a final event in 2022. Ms. [RESPONDENT] and the Commission submit that these allegations should not be struck. B. The Request to Amend the Statements of Particulars [ 8 ] This ruling also determines a request to amend the [RESPONDENT]’s and the Commission’s SOPs. The proposed amendment provides specific information about and the names of individuals in an alleged event that was included in the Retaliation Complaint but inadvertently not included in the SOPs.

II.

DECISION [ 9 ] I grant the requests in part based on the reasons that follow: A) The [RESPONDENT] has confirmed her agreement to withdraw the following headings and paragraphs from her SOP: i. Heading II and paragraphs 52–56. ii. Heading III and paragraphs 57–62. iii. Heading V and paragraphs 68–73. iv. Heading VII and paragraphs 106–110. B) I grant the Respondent’s motion to strike the one remaining 2019 allegation, set out in paragraphs 5, 42(IV), heading IV and paragraphs 63–67 of the [RESPONDENT]’s SOP, along with the corresponding paragraphs in the Commission’s SOP. C) I deny the Respondent’s motion to strike the employment-related allegations set out in heading VI and paragraphs 74–105 of the [RESPONDENT]’s SOP. D) I allow the request to amend the [RESPONDENT]’s and the Commission’s SOPs. E) I order the parties to amend their SOPs in accordance with this ruling.

III. ISSUES [ 10 ] This ruling addresses the following issues: A) What principles guide the Tribunal in deciding whether to strike allegations from a SOP or whether to allow amendments to a SOP? B) Should the disputed allegations be struck? C) Should the parties’ SOPs be amended? IV. MOTION TO STRIKE - DETAILS OF THE DISPUTED ALLEGATIONS [ 11 ] Ms. [RESPONDENT]’s Retaliation Complaint filed with the Commission in 2020 refers to a dispute between the parties about Ms. [RESPONDENT]’s property and related events. A central allegation is that [NAME] blocked roads to prevent Ms. [RESPONDENT] from accessing a property that she identifies as her homestead. The Retaliation Complaint also refers to other events arising from the roadblocks and addresses the impacts of the alleged dispute on Ms. [RESPONDENT]. [ 12 ] [NAME]’s SOP denies Ms. [RESPONDENT]’s allegations of discrimination and her perception of the related events. [ 13 ] I have reviewed the parties’ positions on the motion in the following documents: the Respondent’s September 15, 2023, notice of motion; the Respondent’s October 31, 2023, SOP; the [RESPONDENT]’s and the Commission’s replies to the Respondent’s SOP, both dated November 29, 2023; the parties’ written submissions; and the [RESPONDENT]’s August 13, 2024, email confirming the withdrawal of certain paragraphs from her SOP. A. The [NAME] in 2019 [ 14 ] Five of the seven disputed allegations occurred before Ms. [RESPONDENT] filed the Retaliation Complaint with the Commission. [NAME] submits that these allegations are beyond the scope of this complaint because: a) These allegations are alleged to have taken place in 2019 but, as shown on the front page of Ms. [RESPONDENT]’s Retaliation Complaint, the alleged discrimination began in March 2020. b) The Commission did not investigate these five allegations or include them when it referred the Complaint to the Tribunal for inquiry. [NAME] submits that it would be prejudicial to include them in the inquiry. c) The Tribunal does not have the authority to consider these allegations because they occurred more than one year before Ms. [RESPONDENT] filed her complaint with the Commission. They are therefore barred by the limitation period outlined in section 41(e) of the [NAME] [NAME] ([NAME]). [ 15 ] Ms. [RESPONDENT] has agreed to withdraw four of the five contested allegations. Consequently, the paragraphs in the parties’ SOPs that correspond to the four withdrawn allegations will be deleted, as set out below. [ 16 ] The one remaining allegation is that an [NAME] [NAME] Member and his relatives trespassed and unlawfully used Ms. [RESPONDENT]’s property during the summer of 2019 for drinking parties. This allegation is set out in paragraphs 63 to 67 of Ms. [RESPONDENT]’s SOP and in paragraphs 28 to 30 of the Commission’s SOP. Ms. [RESPONDENT] submits that it should not be struck. The Commission submits that this allegation should not be struck or, in the alternative, should remain in the SOP for context. B. The Employment Complaints [ 17 ] Two of the seven disputed allegations are about [NAME]’s interference with Ms. [RESPONDENT]’s employment. They are alleged to have occurred after the filing of the Retaliation Complaint. (i) Employment Complaint #1 [ 18 ] One employment-related allegation, referred to as “Employment Complaint #1” in [NAME]’s written submissions, is set out in paragraphs 74 to 83 of Ms. [RESPONDENT]’s SOP. This allegation is based on a letter from [NAME]’s Director of [NAME] to Ms. [RESPONDENT], dated around June 2021, notifying Ms. [RESPONDENT] that [NAME] will not renew her employment contract. [ 19 ] Ms. [RESPONDENT]’s Retaliation Complaint did not refer to this allegation. However, the Report for Decision that the Commission’s [NAME] [NAME] prepared does refer to it. The report states: “After filing her complaint in October 2020, the [RESPONDENT] advised Commission staff in April 2021, that her contract with the Respondent was not renewed and her employment was terminated for the school year 2020-21. She stated that she requested severance pay and that, in order to receive it, she had to sign a release that she would not pursue any legal action against her employer.” [ 20 ] The Report for Decision quotes the wording of the release and then states: “The release clearly indicates that it relates to matters of employment and it specifically includes actions or causes under the Act. Given that the [RESPONDENT] acknowledges that she signed the release, this allegation will not be considered further in this report.” [ 21 ] [NAME] submits that, based on the report’s conclusion about Employment Complaint #1, and because the Commission did not issue separate reasons for its decision, it is reasonable to infer that the Commission’s decision to refer the Retaliation Complaint to the Tribunal for inquiry did not include this allegation. Ms. [RESPONDENT] and the Commission disagree with [NAME]’s position. (ii) Employment Complaint #2 [ 22 ] The other employment allegations are referred to collectively in [NAME]’s submissions as “Employment Complaint #2” and are set out in paragraphs 84 to 105 of Ms. [RESPONDENT]’s SOP. They allege that [NAME] coerced Ms. [RESPONDENT] into signing the release related to her former employment, that it withdrew a later offer of employment, and that it informed Ms. [RESPONDENT] that [NAME] will not consider her for future employment. [NAME] submits that the allegations in Employment Complaint #2 do not have the required “nexus” to the roadblock-related allegations in the Retaliation Complaint. Ms. [RESPONDENT] and the Commission argue that there is a nexus between the Retaliation Complaint and these allegations.

V. REQUEST TO AMEND STATEMENTS OF PARTICULARS – THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT [ 23 ] The Commission requested that its SOP be amended to include: A) A statement that Ms. [RESPONDENT] requested and was granted a meeting with [NAME]’s Chief and Council to discuss her concerns about the roadblocks to her property. B) The names of the attendees at the meeting. C) An allegation that a Council member “stood up and pointed at her and said she had no grounds or [NAME] to the land and that she didn’t live there” and an allegation that Ms. [RESPONDENT] was called “outsider” and “trespasser” and was ridiculed. D) An allegation that other Council members did not defend Ms. [RESPONDENT] against these allegations or address the allegedly aggressive behaviour. E) Adding a statement about this allegation to the summary of alleged incidents in paragraph 17 of the Commission’s SOP. [ 24 ] The Commission’s position is that the proposed amendment corresponds to the allegations in the Retaliation Complaint and that [NAME] was notified of these allegations but that they were inadvertently omitted from the SOP. [ 25 ] Ms. [RESPONDENT] has not provided proposed wording to amend her SOP but has provided submissions in support of the Commission’s request. [ 26 ] [NAME] does not object to the proposed amendment if it provides context about the roadblock allegations. However, it objects if the amendment is treated as a separate complaint on the basis that the allegations, even if true, could not support a finding of liability. The Commission, in its reply, disagrees with the latter point.

VI. ANALYSIS A. What principles guide the Tribunal in deciding whether to strike allegations from a SOP or whether to allow amendments to a SOP? [ 27 ] The same legal principles apply whether the Tribunal is dealing with a motion to strike allegations in a SOP or a motion to expand the scope of a complaint ( [NAME] v. Public Health Agency of Canada , 2022 [NAME] 31, paras 6–7 [ [NAME] ]). [ 28 ] Amendments to a [NAME] [NAME] complaint should be allowed for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties, provided that they do not result in prejudice to the other party ( Canada (Attorney General) v. [NAME], 2006 FC 1313, at paras 30, 40 [ [NAME] ]). Additionally, the amendments should be based on “a common factor underpinning the allegations of discrimination” ( [NAME] at para 43). [ 29 ] The considerations for determining whether to strike or amend allegations were recently summarized in [NAME] v. Royal Bank of Canada , 2023 [NAME] 20 [ [NAME] ]: [8] As part of its authority to determine the scope of a complaint, the Tribunal has the power to strike portions of a Statement of Particulars that exceed the scope of the complaint. However, the Tribunal must exercise its authority “cautiously” and only in the “clearest of cases” ( [NAME]  v.  Correctional Service Canada , 2020 [NAME] 27 at para. 86 ). [9] Under section 44(3) and section 49 of the [NAME] [NAME] , R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6 (the Act or [NAME]), a request to the Tribunal to institute an inquiry into a complaint may be made only when the Commission has considered the complaint. Indeed, the SCC in [NAME] v. Canada ([NAME] [NAME] Commission) , 1996 CanLII 152 (SCC) , [1996] 3 S.C.R. 854, at para. 48 states that the Act sets out a complete mechanism for dealing with complaints and that the Commission is central to that mechanism. [10] The well-established case law (see for example [NAME] and [COMPANY] v. Public Service Alliance of Canada (Local 70396) , 2006 FC 704 ) states that the scope of the dispute before the Tribunal may not introduce a new complaint that has not already been considered by the Commission and that does not respect the Commission’s request to institute an inquiry. The Tribunal therefore does not have the power to deal with a complaint that has not been dealt with first by the Commission and that has not been referred to the Tribunal for inquiry (see [NAME] v .  [NAME] First [RESPONDENT] , 2002 CanLII 61849 ([NAME]) , [2002] C.H.R.D. No. 12) [ [NAME] ]). It is therefore necessary that the Tribunal confine itself to the complaint, the Commission’s decisions with respect to the complaint and, in particular, the request for inquiry that the Commission has made to the Tribunal. [11] The concept of a complaint is nevertheless broad enough to be interpreted in a way that encompasses the full extent of a [RESPONDENT]’s allegations ( [NAME] , para. 11 ). A complaint is the first step in the process, and it is inevitable that new facts and circumstances will come to light in the course of the Commission’s investigation ( [NAME] ). The complaint is refined and clarified as the process moves forward ( [NAME] v. Canadian Armed Forces , 2005 [NAME] 1 , para. 11 ) [ [NAME] ]). [12] However, a limit is necessary when the amendment to a complaint can no longer be considered a simple amendment but is instead more like a new complaint ( [RESPONDENT] ). Likewise, upon reading a [RESPONDENT]’s Statement of Particulars, the allegations of facts to be analyzed by the Tribunal for the purposes of determining the dispute must somehow emanate from or arise out of the complaint itself and must not depart from it in such a way as to constitute a new complaint. [ 30 ] The Tribunal is not authorized to deal with a complaint that the Commission has not first dealt with and which the Commission has not referred to the Tribunal for inquiry ( [NAME] at para 10). An allegation may be allowed in a SOP as background or to clarify and elaborate upon the initial allegations, as long as the substance of the original complaint is respected ( [NAME] v. [NAME] , 2017 [NAME] 6 at para 9 [ [NAME] ]; [NAME] v. [COMPANY] , 2021 [NAME] 25 at paras 240–242 and 248–251). [ 31 ] The scope of a Tribunal inquiry is established by the Commission’s referral letter to the Tribunal, and if the letter to the Tribunal does not express any limitations or exclusions, the Tribunal assumes that the complaint is referred in its entirety ( [NAME] v. [COMPANY] and [NAME] , 2021 [NAME] 2 at paras 19–20 [ [NAME] ]; [NAME] v. [NAME]’s Association, ILA Local 269 , 2022 [NAME] 39 at para 34 [ [NAME] ]; [NAME] v. Department of National Defence , 2022 [NAME] 44 at para 92 [ [NAME] ]). [ 32 ] When the Tribunal determines the scope of a complaint and whether it should be amended, it does not conduct a substantive review of the merits of the new elements ( [NAME] at para 56). However, the substance of the SOP must reasonably respect the factual foundation and the original allegations set out in the original complaint ( [NAME]. v. Employment and Social Development Canada , 2023 [NAME] 23 at para 81). [ 33 ] A motion to amend a SOP may be dismissed when it is plain and obvious that the allegations have no chance of success ( [NAME] v. [COMPANY] , 2024 [NAME] 80 at para 10 [ [NAME] ]; [NAME] at para 17; [NAME] v. [NAME] [RESPONDENT] [NAME] , 2004 [NAME] 2 at para 6; [NAME] v. [NAME] , 2004 [NAME] 10 at para 7) . B. Should the disputed allegations be struck? (i) Should the allegations about “drinking parties” on the [RESPONDENT]’s property be struck? [ 34 ] Yes, the allegations that an [NAME] [NAME] Member and his relatives trespassed on Ms. [RESPONDENT]’s property in 2019 and held drinking parties should be struck because there is not a sufficient nexus between the trespassing allegations and either the Original Complaint or the Retaliation Complaint. The trespassing allegations predate the allegation that [NAME] blocked roads to Ms. [RESPONDENT]’s property in 2020, which gave rise to the Retaliation Complaint. Further, the Retaliation Complaint does not include trespassing allegations. The Commission’s Report for Decision about the Retaliation Complaint also indicates that the Original Complaint filed in 2017 involved allegations about the denial of employment opportunities, and there is no reference in the Report for Decision to allegations of trespassing. As in [NAME] , new facts and circumstances that come to light during a Commission investigation, or later, might fall within the scope of a Tribunal inquiry if they emanate from or arise out of the complaint itself. However, based on the findings above, my view is that the “common factor underpinning the allegations of discrimination” that [NAME] requires is insufficient between the allegation of trespassing and either of the [NAME] [NAME] complaints that Ms. [RESPONDENT] has filed. [ 35 ] I do not accept the Commission’s submission that this allegation should remain in the SOP for context. I also acknowledge Ms. [RESPONDENT]’s submissions about the importance of historical context and behaviour as a foundation for her complaint. However, if this allegation were to remain for context, it may require testimony seeking to prove it or refute it. It might require witnesses who would not otherwise be called to testify. A focus on this allegation, for the limited purpose of background or context, would distract from the core issues in the hearing. In my view, the value that might be gained by proving or disproving this contextual allegation is disproportionate to the time and resources it would take to fairly address it in a hearing. [ 36 ] With Ms. [RESPONDENT]’s withdrawal of four allegations and this decision to strike the allegation about trespassing, all complaints about events in 2019 are to be deleted from the parties’ SOPs. Consequently, it is not necessary to address the Respondent’s submissions that the 2019 allegations cannot be considered because they occurred more than one year before the Retaliation Complaint was filed. (ii) Should the employment allegations be struck? [ 37 ] No, the employment allegations are not struck for the reasons described below. [ 38 ] First, I do not accept the Respondent’s submissions that Employment Complaint #1 should be struck. The Respondent submits that, upon reviewing Ms. [RESPONDENT]’s signed release, the Commission’s [NAME] [NAME] decided not to further consider this complaint; it can, therefore, be inferred that the Commission adopted the Report for Decision as its reasons when it referred the Retaliation Complaint to the Tribunal. [ 39 ] That is not my view. The Report for Decision makes clear that Employment Complaint #1 came to light during the Commission’s investigation and that the [NAME] [NAME] considered it; and, on reviewing the release that Ms. [RESPONDENT] signed, the [NAME] [NAME] stated that “the allegation will not be considered further in this report.” However, the [NAME] [NAME]’s decision not to further consider this allegation does not bind the Tribunal or limit the scope of the Tribunal’s inquiry ( [NAME] v. Canadian Armed Forces , 2019 [NAME] 6 at paras 37–39). [ 40 ] I also find these facts to be consistent with the summary of principles about scope in paragraphs 10 and 11 of [NAME] . New facts arose during a Commission investigation, and a [NAME] [NAME] considered them. A Commissioner of the [NAME] [NAME] Commission then reviewed the Report for Decision and issued the decision to refer the Retaliation Complaint to the Tribunal for inquiry “because having regard to all the circumstances of the complaint, further inquiry by a Tribunal is warranted.” The Commission’s decision did not exclude the employment complaint from the referral, or refer to any limitations on the referral, or indicate that the decision adopted the Report for Decision’s position. In the absence of limitations or express exclusions in the Commission’s decision, and in accordance with [NAME] and [NAME] , I find that the Commission referred the Retaliation Complaint in its entirety, including the employment complaint that Ms. [RESPONDENT] brought to the Commission’s attention. [ 41 ] Second, the Respondent’s submissions rely on [NAME] v. [NAME] , 2020 [NAME] 40 [ [NAME] ], but I find that the facts underlying that decision differ to such an extent that it does not apply to the Retaliation Complaint. Paragraph 22 of [NAME] refers to [NAME] v. Canadian Pacific Railway and Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, 2016 [NAME] 8 [ Waddle ] to support the proposition that, where there is evidence that a [RESPONDENT] endorsed or expressed agreement with the content of a document from Commission staff, the documents and the interactions between the [RESPONDENT] and the Commission might be relevant in clarifying the scope of an inquiry. Paragraphs 42 and 43 refer to the discussions between the Commission’s staff and the [RESPONDENT] about the scope of the complaint, to the [RESPONDENT]’s agreement to a specific start date for the alleged discrimination, and to the [RESPONDENT]’s agreement that the events occurring before the start date were for context only. Consequently, in paragraphs 46 and 47, the Tribunal concluded that, as in [NAME], there was a limited temporal scope for the complaint based on the discussions between the Commission and the [RESPONDENT]. [ 42 ] In Ms. [RESPONDENT]’s complaint, the interactions between the [RESPONDENT] and the Commission about Employment Complaint #1 do not include similar facts. The Commission’s Report does not refer to discussions between the Commission and Ms. [RESPONDENT] about the scope of the complaint or to any agreement about scope. Additionally, there is no indication that the Commission’s referral decision adopted the conclusion in the Report for Decision about the signed release. Because the factual foundation underlying the [NAME] reasoning is not present, the [NAME] conclusions do not apply. [ 43 ] Third, I find that Employment Complaint #1 and Employment Complaint #2 are temporally connected to the complaint about the roadblocks to Ms. [RESPONDENT]’s property. In the Retaliation Complaint, Ms. [RESPONDENT] alleges that the Respondent blocked the road to her property in the late spring of 2020. She states that she contacted the [NAME] about it in September 2020 and later attended a meeting of [NAME]’s Chief and Council. In her SOP, Ms. [RESPONDENT] alleges that the road to her property continued to be blocked in 2021 (para 44), that [NAME] sent a letter to Ms. [RESPONDENT] in about June 2021 stating it would not renew her employment contract (para 78), and that additional events involving Ms. [RESPONDENT]’s employment occurred in November or December 2021 (paras 92–99). [ 44 ] All these events, if proven, occurred sequentially from about mid-2020 to late in 2021. In my view, this short period of time establishes a sufficient temporal connection between the alleged occurrences in the Retaliation Complaint and the employment-related allegations in the SOPs. [ 45 ] Fourth, I find that there is also a sufficient substantive link between the allegations in the Original Complaint, the roadblock allegations in the Retaliation Complaint, and the employment-related allegations of retaliation in the SOP. Again, it remains to be seen whether these events can be substantiated. However, in my view, there is a conceivable link among the Original Complaint about the denial of employment opportunities, a possibly difficult relationship between the parties after Ms. [RESPONDENT] filed the Original Complaint, the alleged retaliating action of blocking roads in 2020 and continuing into 2021, the alleged retaliation actions of ending Ms. [RESPONDENT]’s employment in 2021, and the alleged June 2022 communication that Ms. [RESPONDENT] would not be considered for future employment (para 100 of the SOP). On balance, I find that the sequence of events conceivably demonstrates a pattern of retaliatory events that are, as in [NAME] , conceivably connected. [ 46 ] The Tribunal must exercise its authority on a motion to strike particulars before a hearing “cautiously” and only in the “clearest of cases” ( [NAME] ). I have applied this approach in considering these allegations. In my view, it is not clear that the [RESPONDENT]’s employment allegations are incidents of alleged retaliation that should be struck. C. Should the parties’ Statements of Particulars be amended? [ 47 ] Yes, I allow the proposed amendment to the Commission’s SOP and a corresponding amendment to Ms. [RESPONDENT]’s SOP. [ 48 ] The proposed amendment, in my view, closely follows the wording about the alleged event in the Retaliation Complaint, with the addition of names of people present at the Chief and Council meeting. There is no addition to the substance of the original allegation. The amendment enhances the clarity of an alleged event that is already stated. The Respondent has also been aware of this allegation since it was first made in 2020. [ 49 ] Whether this allegation, if proven, could be an independent incident of retaliation and entitle the [RESPONDENT] to a remedy or, alternatively, should be restricted to contextual allegations, may be a matter for argument after the parties have provided their evidence in a hearing. However, in my view, and consistent with [NAME] and [NAME] , it is not “plain and obvious” at this stage of the proceedings that this allegation cannot succeed.

VII.

ORDER A) Based on the [RESPONDENT]’s agreement to withdraw allegations from her SOP, the following headings and paragraphs are to be deleted: i. Heading II and paragraphs 52–56. ii. Heading III and paragraphs 57–62. iii. Heading V and paragraphs 68–73. iv. Heading VII and paragraphs 106–110. The corresponding allegations in the Commission’s SOP and the corresponding responses in the Respondent’s SOP are also to be deleted. B) The following headings and paragraphs involving the allegations that the [RESPONDENT] agreed to withdraw are to be deleted from the [RESPONDENT]’s SOP: paragraphs 6, 7, and 42 (II), (III), (V) and (VII). C) The Respondent’s motion to strike the allegations about trespass on the [RESPONDENT]’s property is granted. The following headings and paragraphs of the [RESPONDENT]’s SOP are to be deleted: paragraphs 5, 42 (IV), heading IV and paragraphs 63–67. The corresponding paragraphs in the Commission’s and the Respondent’s SOPs are also to be deleted. D) The Respondent’s motion to strike the employment-related allegations in heading VI and paragraphs 74–105 of the [RESPONDENT]’s SOP, and the corresponding allegations in the Commission’s SOP, is denied. E) I allow the request to amend the [RESPONDENT]’s and the Commission’s SOPs by including the Commission’s proposed amendment to its SOP and corresponding wording to the [RESPONDENT]’s SOP. F) The parties’ SOPs are to be revised and refiled in accordance with this ruling by October 18, 2024. Signed by [NAME] Tribunal Member Ottawa, Ontario September 26, 2024 [NAME] [NAME] Tribunal Parties of Record File No. : HR-DP-2946-23 Style of Cause: [RESPONDENT] v. [RESPONDENT] of the Tribunal Dated: September 26, 2024 Motion dealt with in writing without appearance of parties Written representations by: [RESPONDENT] , Self-represented [RESPONDENT] [NAME], for the [NAME] [NAME] Commission [RESPONDENT] L. [RESPONDENT] , for the Respondent