GH v. Canadian Security Intelligence Service

GH v. Canadian Security Intelligence Service

The Tribunal found that public disclosure of the identities of current or former CSIS employees would pose a real and substantial risk to national security and could endanger life, liberty or security; the confidentiality terms sought were necessary, constituted the least obstructive means, and were proportionate; accordingly the section 52 motion is allowed and a confidentiality order is issued with specified terms.

Citation
2023 CHRT 28
Parties
Complainant: GH; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Canadian Security Intelligence Service
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint Under the Canadian Human Rights Act / Ruling on Motion Under Section 52 for Confidentiality Order
Outcome
Motion allowed; confidentiality order issued.
Legal Topics
Confidentiality Order, Section 52 CHRA, Section 18 CSIS Act, Retaliation Allegation, Employment References
Source Language
English
Human Rights National Security Administrative Law Privacy and Confidentiality Confidentiality Order Section 52 CHRA Section 18 CSIS Act Retaliation Allegation +1 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GH

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Canadian Security Intelligence Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint Under the Canadian Human Rights Act / Ruling on Motion Under Section 52 for Confidentiality Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a confidentiality order under section 52 of the CHRA is justified
  2. 2 Whether public disclosure would contravene section 18 of the CSIS Act and pose a serious risk to national security or to life, liberty or security of persons
  3. 3 Whether the proposed confidentiality terms are necessary, proportionate and least intrusive

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that public disclosure of the identities of current or former CSIS employees would pose a real and substantial risk to national security and could endanger life, liberty or security; the confidentiality terms sought were necessary, constituted the least obstructive means, and were proportionate; accordingly the section 52 motion is allowed and a confidentiality order is issued with specified terms.

Court Disposition

Motion allowed; confidentiality order issued.

Orders

  • Any information identifying the complainant or any current or past employee of CSIS is designated Confidential Information under section 52 of the CHRA.
  • The complainant will be identified only by the pseudonym "GH" in all Tribunal filings, correspondence and Rulings and Decisions until further order.