Mahood v. Canadian Air Transport Security Authority

Mahood v. Canadian Air Transport Security Authority

Section 4.79(2) requires an in camera review and reasonable opportunity for the Minister to make representations, but it does not mandate an ex parte hearing; exclusion of the parties is an extraordinary departure from natural justice that must be justified by specific facts or clear legislative authority, so the Tribunal will conduct an in camera confidentiality hearing with parties notified and may permit limited ex parte representations only if appropriately justified.

Citation
2017 CHRT 19
Parties
Complainant: Kathleen Mahood; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Canadian Air Transport Security Authority
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint (disability) Regarding Provision of Service / Pre Hearing Ruling on Procedure for Disclosure of Security Measures Under S.4.79 Aeronautics Act
Outcome
Tribunal orders an in camera confidentiality hearing under s.4.79(2); rejects automatic ex parte procedure; sets process and conditions for Minister representations and review of CCTV footage.
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Security Measures, In Camera Vs Ex Parte Procedure, Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice, Section 4.79 Aeronautics Act, CCTV Evidence at Administrative Tribunal
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Human Rights Law Aviation Law Evidence and Procedure Privacy and Confidentiality Disclosure of Security Measures In Camera Vs Ex Parte Procedure Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice +2 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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kathleen Mahood

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Canadian Air Transport Security Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint (disability) Regarding Provision of Service / Pre Hearing Ruling on Procedure for Disclosure of Security Measures Under S.4.79 Aeronautics Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.4.79(2) of the Aeronautics Act requires an ex parte hearing when the Minister makes representations about disclosure of a security measure
  2. 2 What procedure the Tribunal must follow when considering production or discovery of security measures (CCTV) under s.4.79
  3. 3 Whether the public interest in administration of justice outweighs aviation security and what restrictions should attend any disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

Section 4.79(2) requires an in camera review and reasonable opportunity for the Minister to make representations, but it does not mandate an ex parte hearing; exclusion of the parties is an extraordinary departure from natural justice that must be justified by specific facts or clear legislative authority, so the Tribunal will conduct an in camera confidentiality hearing with parties notified and may permit limited ex parte representations only if appropriately justified.

Court Disposition

Tribunal orders an in camera confidentiality hearing under s.4.79(2); rejects automatic ex parte procedure; sets process and conditions for Minister representations and review of CCTV footage.

Orders

  • A hearing pursuant to s.4.79(2) of the Aeronautics Act shall be conducted in Ottawa at a date and location fixed by the Registrar in consultation with the parties and counsel to the Minister (the Confidentiality Hearing).
  • Prior to the Confidentiality Hearing, the Minister will make arrangements with the Registry Office for the Member to review the security measure.