Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The plaintiff was permitted to amend his civil claim to include existing Human Rights Tribunal allegations but could not expand them beyond what was pleaded before the HRTO.

• The court struck attempts to add a new defendant (Robert Gordon) without formal leave.

• Claims for defamation lacked required particulars and were ordered to be amended or removed entirely.

• Allegations falling under a collective agreement were deemed within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator, not the court.

• Improper references to settlement discussions and misuse of confidential grievance materials were addressed under privilege and deemed undertaking rules.

• Damages claimed under the Human Rights Code were capped at $250,000, in line with the originally approved pleading.

Background and procedural history

Gurupdesh Pandher, a faculty member at the University of Windsor, commenced a civil action against the university and several senior administrators, alleging discrimination, harassment, and reputational harm. He also had three active applications before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) addressing similar issues. The court previously granted him leave in principle to incorporate the HRTO claims into his civil action, subject to final approval of the amended pleading.

The plaintiff submitted a proposed Fresh As Amended Statement of Claim (FAASOC) that included new allegations, additional parties, and expanded claims. The court was tasked with determining the appropriateness of these amendments and the procedural and jurisdictional limits on such changes.

Improper addition of parties and overextension of claims

The plaintiff attempted to add Robert Gordon as a new defendant, citing Gordon's inclusion in one of the HRTO complaints. However, he had not requested leave to do so in the motion materials. The court struck Gordon from the style of cause and ordered all claims against him removed, reaffirming that party additions require specific leave from the court.

Additionally, the plaintiff tried to broaden the human rights claims by including grounds like sex, gender identity, gender expression, and disability—none of which were raised in the original HRTO applications. The court ruled that the plaintiff’s leave to incorporate HRTO claims did not entitle him to introduce new grounds and struck the added allegations.

Defamation and pleading deficiencies

The proposed defamation claim was found to be vague and lacking in particulars, such as who made the statements, when, and to whom. While the court acknowledged evolving standards that allow some flexibility in pleadings, it held that the plaintiff failed to meet even the more lenient threshold. The court ordered that the defamation allegations be either properly particularized or struck from the claim.

Similar issues were identified in other tort claims, such as intentional interference with economic relations and misfeasance in public office. In most cases, the court permitted the plaintiff to amend the pleadings with clearer details, including the identification of individuals previously referred to generically.

Jurisdictional constraints due to collective agreement

Much of the plaintiff's employment history occurred while he was a unionized professor. Drawing from the Supreme Court’s decision in Weber v. Ontario Hydro, the court reaffirmed that disputes whose “essential character” arises from a collective agreement fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator. Many of Pandher’s allegations, such as those concerning disciplinary measures and job applications, were found to be rooted in employment-related matters subject to arbitration.

However, the court allowed some claims to proceed where it was not clearly established that they arose during the plaintiff's time as a unionized employee or where no corresponding grievance existed. These claims remained subject to further jurisdictional challenge at trial.

Use of confidential materials and settlement privilege

The court rejected the defendants’ objection to the plaintiff using information disclosed during labour grievances. Relying on the Tanner v. Clark line of authority, the court held that documents obtained through arbitration were not subject to the deemed or implied undertaking rules preventing their use in court, especially where relevance was clear and privilege did not apply.

In contrast, references to alleged coercive settlement efforts were struck for infringing settlement privilege. The court emphasized that a party cannot allege improper motives or pressure linked to settlement discussions without violating confidentiality protections and introducing unprovable assertions.

Damages and final disposition

The plaintiff attempted to raise the claimed damages under the Human Rights Code from $250,000 to $750,000. The court disallowed this, stating that while leave had been granted to amend the pleadings, it did not authorize changes to the quantum of damages. Any such increase would require a separate motion.

Ultimately, the court ordered the plaintiff to file a corrected FAASOC in accordance with its ruling and granted the defendants time to respond. It expressed frustration at the procedural inefficiencies the motion had caused and warned both parties that further unreasonable conduct could lead to cost penalties. The final outcome was procedural in nature, clarifying the scope and form of the pleadings without resolving the substantive claims.