A human rights complaint may have a long history, but the Tribunal still needs to know which part of that history the Canadian Human Rights Commission actually referred for a hearing. In Mosher v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police, 2026 CHRT 101, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal required a former RCMP member to remove a substantial set of allegations from his Statement of Particulars. The decision also dealt with a separate problem in the submissions, legal authorities that could not be found, including a citation assigned to a decision that did not exist.
Shannon Mosher alleged that the RCMP discriminated against him on the basis of disability when it required him to take a medical rather than an administrative discharge. He also described earlier workplace treatment, his removal from a forensic identification unit and discrimination linked to his Indigenous identity. The Commission, however, had referred only the allegations concerning the July to October 2019 discharge process. The RCMP applied to strike material beyond that period. Mosher argued that the earlier events and his identity were important background for understanding why the discharge process felt discriminatory.
Section 49 of the Canadian Human Rights Act limits the Tribunal to complaints the Commission has referred. That doesn't mean every event preceding a referral must disappear from a pleading. The Tribunal considered its ability to examine the real issues in dispute, including allegations on the same factual continuum that provide useful context without unfairly expanding the case. The distinction depends on a connection to the referred complaint, rather than whether the complainant considers the background important.
Here, the earlier workplace allegations concerned a different supervisor, different interactions and events predating the discharge. The discharge allegations involved a separate RCMP employee responsible for that process, together with questions about accommodation, placement and departmental policy. Mosher said he continued to experience the consequences of earlier treatment, but the Tribunal found no factual allegation linking the earlier conflicts to how the discharge was administered. Keeping those matters would invite more witnesses and evidence without helping decide the referred issues.
The proposed Indigenous identity allegations had a different problem. The Commission hadn't considered or referred that ground, and the Statement of Particulars went beyond passing historical context by suggesting wider differential treatment of Indigenous RCMP members. The Tribunal found no pleaded facts connecting Mosher's identity to the alleged disability discrimination in the discharge process. Allowing those allegations could have transformed an individual discharge complaint into a wider systemic inquiry that the Commission had not referred. The Tribunal made no findings about the experiences of Indigenous RCMP members generally.
The ruling also addressed litigation accuracy. The RCMP had tried unsuccessfully to locate 5 authorities cited in Mosher's submissions. After receiving an opportunity to identify them, Mosher provided citations and sources, but the difficulty remained. One supposed case, Luong v. Treasury Board (Canada), was attributed to 2022 CHRT 21, a citation belonging to a different decision. The Tribunal concluded that the cited Luong ruling did not exist, explained the delay and damage such references can cause, and ordered Mosher to ensure the accuracy of his future submissions. It did not decide that every contested authority had been deliberately fabricated.
The RCMP's motion was allowed. The Tribunal identified the paragraphs and passages to be removed and ordered an amended Statement of Particulars by October 15, 2026. The RCMP's particulars were due November 5 and Mosher's reply November 13. The underlying disability discrimination complaint was not dismissed or resolved on its merits.
For employers and practitioners, this is a useful reminder to identify the Commission's actual referral before deciding what belongs in a human rights pleading. Relevant background remains possible, but broad allegations without a demonstrated factual connection can consume hearing time and expand the proceeding beyond its legal mandate. The additional direction about nonexistent cases is particularly practical. A citation that looks convincing still needs to resolve to the judgment claimed, and that responsibility applies even where a party is self represented.