T.P. v. Canadian Armed Forces

T.P. v. Canadian Armed Forces

Anonymization of the Complainant and a ban on publication of his identifying information are granted, and the Tribunal will keep the pre-inquiry record sealed with specified public exceptions; medical documents in the Tribunal's possession remain confidential at the preliminary stage and documentary evidence filed at hearing must have identifying information redacted but are not automatically sealed in full absent a hearing-stage application.

Citation
2019 CHRT 10
Parties
Complainant: T.P.; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Canadian Armed Forces
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint (canadian Human Rights Act) / Pre Inquiry Interim Ruling on Confidentiality Motion
Outcome
Confidentiality order granted in part: complainant anonymized; identifying information publication ban; pre-inquiry record sealed with limited public exceptions; medical documents kept confidential at this stage; hearing evidence not sealed by default but must be redacted for identifying information
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Accommodation Requests, Confidentiality Orders, Bona Fide Occupational Requirement (bfor)
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Disability Law Administrative Law Employment Law Disability Discrimination Accommodation Requests Confidentiality Orders Bona Fide Occupational Requirement (bfor)

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

T.P.

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Canadian Armed Forces

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to anonymize the complainant and ban publication of identifying information
  2. 2 Whether to seal the Tribunal record in its entirety at the preliminary stage or limit confidentiality to medical and pre-inquiry records
  3. 3 How to balance the risk of undue hardship from disclosure under s.52(1)(c) of the Act with the statutory public nature and educational function of Tribunal inquiries

Ratio Decidendi

Anonymization of the Complainant and a ban on publication of his identifying information are granted, and the Tribunal will keep the pre-inquiry record sealed with specified public exceptions; medical documents in the Tribunal's possession remain confidential at the preliminary stage and documentary evidence filed at hearing must have identifying information redacted but are not automatically sealed in full absent a hearing-stage application.

Court Disposition

Confidentiality order granted in part: complainant anonymized; identifying information publication ban; pre-inquiry record sealed with limited public exceptions; medical documents kept confidential at this stage; hearing evidence not sealed by default but must be redacted for identifying information

Orders

  • Complainant shall be referred to as T.P. in all motions, submissions, hearings, rulings and decisions in this proceeding
  • Ban on publication of the Complainant's personal identifying information including names, occupation, date of birth, home address, email address, telephone number and names of family members