D/3624; Coupal v. Canada (Border Services Agency), 2008 CHRT 24
(“Coupal”) at para 20).
 The decision to add a party to a proceeding is not without consequences. The CHRA
sets out a very specific mechanism for the handling of complaints and their referral to the
Tribunal for inquiry. The Commission is a major component of that procedure in that, among
other things, it plays a complaint screening or gatekeeper role. For a more detailed
description of this mechanism, the Tribunal refers the reader to Karas v. Canadian Blood
Services and Health Canada, 2021 CHRT 2 () at paragraphs 12 to 18, where the
complaint referral mechanism is summarized.
 As the Tribunal wrote at paragraph 41 of MCFN v. AGC, 2021 CHRT 31 ()
[MCFN]), about the role played by the Commission:
 . . . To deprive some respondents of the protections afforded by this
process by eliminating the opportunity to answer the allegations, during an
investigation by the Commission before a referral takes place, would deprive
them of procedural fairness and natural justice afforded to those respondents
who are permitted to participate fully in the process at the Commission.
 At paragraphs 46 to 48 of Brown v. Canada (National Capital Commission), 2003
CHRT 43 () [Brown], a decision cited in MCFN, the Tribunal also wrote the following:
 The final argument raised by Public Works is prejudice. This rests
primarily on the fact that the department has lost the benefits that generally
accrue to a Respondent during the investigative process. This is an important
consideration, which is offset by the fact that this will usually be the case, if a
Respondent is added after a complaint has been referred to the Tribunal
under the Act.
 The reality is that Mr. Brown could file a new complaint tomorrow, with
Public Works as a Respondent. The Commission could then refer the matter
to the Tribunal under section 49(1) of the Act, with or without an investigation.
In my view it would be inappropriate to rely on this kind of formal
maneuvering to bring Public Works before the Tribunal.
 The idea that the Complainant would have to file a second complaint
to deal with the issues that might arise with Public Works runs against
the spirit of the Act. This would merely delay the satisfaction of any
rights to which the Complainant may be entitled and use up the scarce
resources of the system of justice. If Public Works is a proper party in the
matter, it should be brought in as expeditiously as possible, in a manner that
deals naturally with all of the issues that arise out of the complaint