Tribunal Rejects Motion to Amend Complaint for Family Status Discrimination

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Tribunal canadien des droits de la personne Citation: 2026 CHRT 43 Date: May 4, 2026 File No. : HR-DP-3173-25 Between: [NAME] Complainant - and - Canadian Human Rights Commission Commission - and - [NAME] Respondent Ruling Member: [NAME] \o "1-3" \h \z \u I. OVERVIEW PAGEREF _Toc228539915 \h 1 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320038003500330039003900310035000000 II.

DECISION PAGEREF _Toc228539916 \h 1 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320038003500330039003900310036000000 III. ISSUE PAGEREF _Toc228539917 \h 1 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320038003500330039003900310037000000 IV. ANALYSIS PAGEREF _Toc228539918 \h 2 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320038003500330039003900310038000000 A. Context PAGEREF _Toc228539919 \h 2 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320038003500330039003900310039000000 B. Legal framework PAGEREF _Toc228539920 \h 3 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320038003500330039003900320030000000 C. The Tribunal cannot review the Commission’s decision not to consider the ground of “family status” PAGEREF _Toc228539921 \h 4 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320038003500330039003900320031000000 V.

ORDER PAGEREF _Toc228539922 \h 5 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320038003500330039003900320032000000 I. OVERVIEW [ 1 ] This ruling determines a motion to amend a complaint by adding “family status” as a ground for the alleged discrimination. For the reasons below, I dismiss the motion. [ 2 ] [NAME] (the “Complainant”) is an employee of [NAME] (the “Respondent”). As of October 1, 2004, all newly hired [NAME] employees who were eligible to join its pension plan participated in a “Defined Contribution” pension arrangement (the “DC Plan”) in place of the pre-existing “Defined Benefit” pension arrangement (the “DB Plan”). [NAME] became a [NAME] employee after October 1, 2004, so he participates in the DC Plan. [ 3 ] [NAME]’s complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges that an element of the DC Plan is discriminatory. [NAME] alleges that, for employees who take parental leave, the DC Plan has the effect of reducing the amount of the retirement pension that they will receive, but that the original DB Plan does not have a similar effect for participants in that plan. [ 4 ] [NAME]’s Complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) alleges discrimination based on age. [NAME] disputes [NAME]’s characterization of the DC Plan and denies the allegation of discrimination. [ 5 ] [NAME] asked the Commission to also consider “family status” as a ground for the alleged discrimination, but the Commission decided not to do so. [NAME] now asks the Tribunal to allow this amendment to the Complaint.

II.

DECISION [ 6 ] The motion is dismissed. The Tribunal does not allow an amendment to the Complaint that the Commission considered and refused.

III. ISSUE [ 7 ] The sole issue is whether the Complaint should be amended to include “family status” as a ground of discrimination.

IV. ANALYSIS A. Context [ 8 ] In the Complaint, [NAME] states that participants in the DC Plan who take parental leave do not contribute to the DC Plan during the parental leave, and that the DC Plan does not permit them to make up for these “missed” pension contributions later. However, participants in the DB Plan continue to accrue pensionable service during a parental leave. [NAME] alleges that the inability of DC Plan participants to make up for missed pension contributions has the effect of reducing their retirement pension, but that the DB Plan arrangements do not have this effect. [ 9 ] The Complaint alleges that participants in the DC Plan are younger than participants in the DB Plan, and that, accordingly, this effect of the DC Plan discriminates against participants based on their age. [NAME] denies this allegation. [ 10 ] There are references in the Complaint to [NAME] employees who take parental leave. [NAME]’s later documents to the Commission also refer to “parents” who take parental leave or maternity leave. [ 11 ] [NAME] and [NAME] also provided submissions to the Commission before it decided about the Complaint. [NAME]’s April 15, 2025, submissions argued that taking parental leave is tied to both the age and the family status of [NAME] employees. He asked that the inquiry into the Complaint “determine whether Bell’s pension policy constitutes discrimination based on age and family status ” (emphasis added). [ 12 ] [NAME]’s May 5, 2025, submissions argued that the Complaint referred only to age as the ground on which discrimination has been alleged, and that the Commission should not allow the addition of the “new ground” of family status. [ 13 ] On July 17, 2025, the Commission issued its decision (the “Decision”). It describes the Complaint as an allegation about a [NAME] policy that discriminates based on age. It referred to both [NAME]’s submission that the family status of [NAME] employees should be considered as part of the Complaint, and to [NAME]’s objection to adding a ground of discrimination that was not in the original Complaint. The Decision states that the Commission “will deal with the Complaint,” but that it agrees with [NAME] “that the Commission should not consider the ground of family status which the Complainant did not include in his Complaint Form and which was raised only in his final submission.” The Decision also referred the Complaint to the Tribunal for inquiry. B. Legal framework [ 14 ] The Canadian Human Rights Act , R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6 (the CHRA) sets out a complete mechanism for dealing with human rights complaints, and the Commission is central to this mechanism (see [NAME] v. [COMPANY] of Canada , 2023 CHRT 20 at para 9 [ [NAME] ], citing [NAME] v. Canada (Human Rights Commission) , 1996 CanLII 152 (SCC) at para 48). The Commission screens and investigates complaints (see sections 40, 44, and 49 of the CHRA). [ 15 ] The Tribunal’s role is to inquire into complaints that the Commission refers to it (see sections 44(3) and 49 of the CHRA). The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited by the scope of the original complaint filed with the Commission and the Commission’s decision when referring a complaint to the Tribunal (see [NAME] v. [NAME] First Nation, 2026 CHRT 27 at para 14, citing [NAME] v. [NAME], 2019 CHRT 6 at paras 27–28). [ 16 ] The Tribunal can amend, clarify, and determine the scope of a complaint to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties, provided that the amendment is linked to the original complaint and does not cause prejudice to the other parties (see [NAME] at paras 7–12; and Canada ( Attorney General) v. [NAME], 2006 FC 1313 at paras 30 and 40 [ [NAME] ]). However, the Tribunal’s authority does not extend to reviewing an exercise of the Commission’s discretion (see Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. [NAME] , 2012 FC 1162 at para 56 [ [NAME] FC ]). The substance of the original complaint and the Commission’s mandate must be respected (see Coalition of First Nation Adults with [NAME] v. [COMPANY] , 2025 CHRT 115 at para 15 [ Coalition of First Nation Adults with [NAME] ]). [ 17 ] Where the Commission has exercised its authority under the CHRA to not deal with an allegation, the Tribunal does not have the authority to include the allegation within the scope of its inquiry (see [NAME] v. [NAME] , 2023 CHRT 17 at paras 10–16; and [NAME] v. [NAME] Service , 2026 CHRT 3 at para 22). C. The Tribunal cannot review the Commission’s decision not to consider the ground of “family status” [ 18 ] [NAME]’s original Complaint referred to [NAME] employees who take parental leave, but it only alleged that [NAME] discriminated against them based on their age. [ 19 ] [NAME]’s later references to the allegation that [NAME] discriminates against parents who take parental or maternity leave, the motion materials satisfy me that the original Complaint did not specifically allege a link between the arrangements of the DC Plan and discrimination on the grounds of family status. That link was identified later, in [NAME]’s April 15, 2025, submissions to the Commission. [ 20 ] The Decision refers to the parties’ submissions and confirms that the Commission would not consider family status as a ground for the Complaint. Consequently, I find that the Commission’s referral of the Complaint to the Tribunal for inquiry did not include the allegation that [NAME] engaged in a discriminatory practice based on [NAME]’s family status. [ 21 ] [NAME]’s motion submissions argue that the facts supporting the proposed amendment are identical to the facts that underly the original Complaint, that the amendment does not introduce new factual allegations, and that the prohibited grounds of age and family status are interrelated. He submits that the references in the Complaint to employees who take parental leave, and his follow-up communications referring to “parents” who take this leave, demonstrates that “family status” is not a new ground for the Complaint and was “the essence of his complaint from the beginning.” [NAME] also submits that [NAME] cannot claim prejudice based on this “formal” amendment because the parties have been litigating this issue since at least December 2024. In his view, refusing this amendment would artificially narrow the scope of the Tribunal’s inquiry and prevent the consideration of the real questions in controversy between the parties. [ 22 ] I am not persuaded that the proposed amendment should be allowed. While the Tribunal has the authority to allow an amendment to clarify and elaborate upon the initial allegations in a complaint, the facts before me do not convince me on a balance of probabilities to allow it. Firstly, the Tribunal may allow amendments where new facts and circumstances come to light after a complaint has been filed with the Commission (see [NAME] v. [NAME] , 2017 CHRT 6 at para 8, citing [NAME] v. [NAME] , 2005 CHRT 1 at para 11), but the proposed amendment in this case does not involve new facts coming to light. [ 23 ] Secondly, and most importantly, the Commission explicitly decided not to consider “family status” as a ground for the alleged discrimination. The Tribunal must respect the Commission’s mandate and the substance of the complaint that the Commission referred for inquiry (see Coalition of First Nation Adults with [NAME] at para 15). I find that [NAME]’s submission to the Commission “to proceed with an inquiry into [his] complaint” with family status as a ground for inquiry, and the Commission’s clear decision that it “should not consider the ground of family status” are highly persuasive facts in defining the scope and substance of the complaint that the Commission referred. In my view, to allow the proposed amendment after the Commission decided not to consider it would amount to a review of the Commission’s screening process decision and a determination that the Commission’s decision was not reasonable. As noted above, the Tribunal does not have that authority. That is the role of the Federal Court on judicial review (see [NAME] v. [NAME]’s Association , ILA Local 269, 2022 CHRT 39 at para 39, citing [NAME] FC at para 56).

V.

ORDER [ 24 ] The motion is dismissed. Signed by [NAME] Tribunal Member Ottawa, Ontario May 4, 2026 Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Parties of Record File No. : HR-DP-3173-25 Style of Cause: [NAME] v. [NAME] of the Tribunal Dated: May 4, 2026 Motion dealt with in writing without appearance of parties Written representations by: [NAME] , for the Complainant [NAME] and [NAME] , for the Respondent