AB v. Canadian Security Intelligence Service

AB v. Canadian Security Intelligence Service

The Tribunal denied CSIS's request for blanket audio-only or camera-off testimony because a less intrusive, reasonable alternative existed: holding in camera testimony attended only by the member, registry officer, parties' counsel, CSIS instructing authorities and the complainant, with witnesses testifying with cameras on and an audio recording placed on the official record; this approach preserves confidentiality mandated by s.18 of the CSIS Act, respects s.52 CHRA balancing requirements, and protects trial fairness and credibility assessment by allowing visual observation by the decision-maker and counsel.

Citation
2023 CHRT 37
Parties
Complainant: A.B.; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Canadian Security Intelligence Service
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint / Ruling on Confidentiality Motion (pre Hearing)
Outcome
CSIS motion denied; confidentiality and procedural orders issued allowing in camera testimony with cameras on for confidential CSIS employees, public excluded during that testimony, and audio recordings placed on the official record; opening and closing statements remain public with confidential employees turning...
Legal Topics
Anonymization, In Camera Proceedings, Video Testimony, Open Court Principle, Witness Protection, Section 52 CHRA, Section 18 CSIS Act
Source Language
English
Human Rights Administrative Law National Security Privacy Evidence Anonymization In Camera Proceedings Video Testimony +4 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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A.B.

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Canadian Security Intelligence Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint / Ruling on Confidentiality Motion (pre Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal should permit current or former CSIS employees to testify by video with cameras turned off or audio-only
  2. 2 How to balance the open court principle against the public interest in protecting identities of Confidential CSIS Employees under s.18 of the CSIS Act
  3. 3 Whether less intrusive alternatives are available to prevent disclosure of identities

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal denied CSIS's request for blanket audio-only or camera-off testimony because a less intrusive, reasonable alternative existed: holding in camera testimony attended only by the member, registry officer, parties' counsel, CSIS instructing authorities and the complainant, with witnesses testifying with cameras on and an audio recording placed on the official record; this approach preserves confidentiality mandated by s.18 of the CSIS Act, respects s.52 CHRA balancing requirements, and protects trial fairness and credibility assessment by allowing visual observation by the decision-maker and counsel.

Court Disposition

CSIS motion denied; confidentiality and procedural orders issued allowing in camera testimony with cameras on for confidential CSIS employees, public excluded during that testimony, and audio recordings placed on the official record; opening and closing statements remain public with confidential employees turning...

Orders

  • CSIS's motion is denied.
  • Confidential CSIS Employees will not be identified by name during the hearing.