Shaw v. Bell Canada

Shaw v. Bell Canada

The Commission met the low threshold of arguable relevance showing a rational nexus between requested documents and the issues including Bell's undue hardship defence and systemic aspects of the complaint; Bell must disclose the specified categories of documents (with reasonable refinements to narrow scope) and provide a revised Schedule B for privileged accessibility audits; confidentiality and commercial sensitivity are insufficient to defeat disclosure at this stage and can be managed by protective orders.

Citation
2019 CHRT 24
Parties
Complainant: Allan Shaw; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Bell Canada
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint Under the Canadian Human Rights Act (disability) / Pre Hearing Disclosure Motion — Ruling on Production of Documents
Outcome
Motion allowed in part
Legal Topics
Document Disclosure, Arguable Relevance, Undue Hardship Defence, Web Accessibility (wcag), Solicitor Client and Litigation Privilege, Confidentiality and Privacy, Systemic Remedies
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Administrative Law Disability Law Procedural Law (disclosure) Document Disclosure Arguable Relevance Undue Hardship Defence Web Accessibility (wcag) +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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Allan Shaw

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Bell Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint Under the Canadian Human Rights Act (disability) / Pre Hearing Disclosure Motion — Ruling on Production of Documents

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the requested documents are arguably relevant to the facts, issues or forms of relief in the complaint
  2. 2 Scope of disclosure as to MyBell portal vs One Bill page
  3. 3 Whether confidentiality, commercial sensitivity or privilege justify nondisclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The Commission met the low threshold of arguable relevance showing a rational nexus between requested documents and the issues including Bell's undue hardship defence and systemic aspects of the complaint; Bell must disclose the specified categories of documents (with reasonable refinements to narrow scope) and provide a revised Schedule B for privileged accessibility audits; confidentiality and commercial sensitivity are insufficient to defeat disclosure at this stage and can be managed by protective orders.

Court Disposition

Motion allowed in part

Orders

  • Bell shall disclose documents responsive to paragraph 2a) of the Commission's request (work undertaken to improve accessibility of MyBell and One Bill from 2014 to present) subject to the refinements identified by the Commission in paragraph 35 of the Ruling
  • Bell shall disclose documents responsive to paragraph 2b) of the Commission's request (details about the July 2015 MyBell/One Bill update) subject to the refinement identified in paragraph 41 of the Ruling