Canadian Human Rights Tribunal

Decision Information

Decision Content

Between:

Micheline Montreuil

Complainant

- and -

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

- and -

Canadian Forces

Respondent

Ruling

Member: Pierre Deschamps
Date: November 2, 2006
Citation: 2006 CHRT 55

[1] The respondent is requesting that simultaneous interpretation services be available during the testimony of some of its witnesses, namely Dr. Wilchesky, Dr. Karmel, Dr. Boddam, Dr. Newnham, Dr. Watson and Colonel Fletcher, since they are more comfortable testifying in English than in French.

[2] Moreover, the respondent requests that the simultaneous interpretation services be made available during the testimony of Dr. Beltrami to facilitate the understanding of one of its experts, Dr. Karmel, who will eventually be called to testify in regard to Dr. Beltrami's testimony.

[3] The Tribunal grants respondent's motion for simultaneous interpretation services to be available during the testimony of Dr. Wilchesky, Dr. Karmel, Dr. Boddam, Dr. Newnham, Dr. Watson and Colonel Fletcher.

[4] The Tribunal also grants respondent's application that simultaneous interpretation services be available during the testimony of Dr. Beltrami, considering the testimony of Dr. Karmel as an expert will deal with the report produced by Dr. Beltrami and his testimony and it is important for Dr. Karmel to understand all the nuances of Dr. Beltrami's potential testimony, so as to be able to advise the Tribunal in the best manner possible on one of the questions in issue.

Signed by

Pierre Deschamps
Tribunal Member

Ottawa, Ontario
November 2, 2006

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal

Parties of Record

Tribunal File: T1047/2805

Style of Cause: Micheline Montreuil v. Canadian Forces

Ruling of the Tribunal Dated: November 2, 2006 (Rendered from the bench)

Date and Place of Hearing: October 23 to 27, 2006
October 30 to November 2, 2006

Quebec, Quebec

Appearances:

Micheline Montreuil, for herself

Ikram Warsame, for the Canadian Human Rights Commission

Guy Lamb and Pauline Leroux, for the Respondent

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.