Melanie Blache v. Bell Canada

Melanie Blache v. Bell Canada

Applying s.52(1)(c) CHRA and the Sherman Estate test, the Tribunal found the privacy interests of non-party accommodated employees in their sensitive personal and medical information created a real and substantial risk of undue hardship; anonymizing names by replacing them with initials is necessary, proportionate, minimally intrusive, preserves disclosure of substantive evidence and testimony, and therefore a confidentiality order is warranted.

Citation
2022 CHRT 35
Parties
Complainant: Melanie Blache; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Bell Canada
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint (canadian Human Rights Act) / Ruling on Confidentiality Motion
Outcome
Confidentiality motion granted; anonymization order issued
Legal Topics
Confidentiality Orders, Anonymization, Section 52 CHRA, Open Court Principle, Accommodation, Family Status Discrimination, Colour Discrimination
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Administrative Law Privacy Law Court Procedure Confidentiality Orders Anonymization Section 52 CHRA Open Court Principle +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Melanie Blache

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Bell Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint (canadian Human Rights Act) / Ruling on Confidentiality Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a confidentiality/anonymization order under s.52(1)(c) CHRA is warranted
  2. 2 How to apply the Sherman Estate test to limit open court principle
  3. 3 Whether anonymizing names is necessary and proportionate to protect non-party privacy

Ratio Decidendi

Applying s.52(1)(c) CHRA and the Sherman Estate test, the Tribunal found the privacy interests of non-party accommodated employees in their sensitive personal and medical information created a real and substantial risk of undue hardship; anonymizing names by replacing them with initials is necessary, proportionate, minimally intrusive, preserves disclosure of substantive evidence and testimony, and therefore a confidentiality order is warranted.

Court Disposition

Confidentiality motion granted; anonymization order issued

Orders

  • Other Accommodated Employees will be referred to by their initials in all further motions, submissions, hearings, and rulings in these proceedings.
  • Documents and information pertaining to the Other Accommodated Employees will be redacted by removing their names and replacing them with their initials.