Cherette v. Air Canada

Cherette v. Air Canada

The Tribunal held that Content A was not arguably relevant and objectively embarrassing and therefore may remain redacted without a confidentiality order; Content B was arguably relevant (proximate to migraine/stress entries) and must be disclosed to the other parties' counsel and one instructing representative...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2024 CHRT 8
Parties
Complainant: Schelomie Cherette; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Air Canada
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint (canadian Human Rights Act) / Case Management / Disclosure Stage
Outcome
Some redactions upheld (Content A); other redactions must be disclosed (Content B) to counsel and one instructing representative; application for confidentiality order dismissed without prejudice to renewal at hearing.
Legal Topics
Confidentiality Orders, Medical Records Disclosure, Irrelevance Redactions, Section 52(1) Canadian Human Rights Act, Burden of Proof for Undue Hardship, Montreal Convention Remedy Limitation
Source Language
english
Human Rights Privacy Administrative Law Evidence Confidentiality Orders Medical Records Disclosure Irrelevance Redactions Section 52(1) Canadian Human Rights Act +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Schelomie Cherette

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Air Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint (canadian Human Rights Act) / Case Management / Disclosure Stage

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proposed redactions to complainant's medical records should remain
  2. 2 Whether a confidentiality order under s.52(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act should be granted over redacted or unredacted medical records
  3. 3 Proper process to preserve privacy pending Tribunal review

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that Content A was not arguably relevant and objectively embarrassing and therefore may remain redacted without a confidentiality order; Content B was arguably relevant (proximate to migraine/stress entries) and must be disclosed to the other parties' counsel and one instructing representative subject to limits; the complainant failed to satisfy s.52(1)(c) that disclosure would cause real and substantial undue hardship that outweighs the public interest, so the motion for a confidentiality order over the records is dismissed without prejudice to renewal at the hearing.

Court Disposition

Some redactions upheld (Content A); other redactions must be disclosed (Content B) to counsel and one instructing representative; application for confidentiality order dismissed without prejudice to renewal at hearing.

Orders

  • Redactions identified as Content A in the complainant's medical records shall remain redacted as irrelevant and sensitive.
  • Content to be disclosed as a result of this ruling (Content B) shall be disclosed only to counsel and one instructing representative unless otherwise approved by the Tribunal.