AB v. Canadian Security Intelligence Service

AB v. Canadian Security Intelligence Service

Applying the Sierra Club/Sherman Estate framework, the Tribunal found that disclosure of identities covered by s.18(1) posed a serious risk to national security, that anonymization by pseudonym/consistent random initials and position titles was necessary and the least intrusive means, and that confidentiality in limited form (including confidential disclosure of full names to counsel or the Commission where necessary) is proportionate; accordingly a s.52 CHRA confidentiality order was granted limited to employees engaged in covert operational activities, including the Complainant.

Citation
2023 CHRT 5
Parties
Complainant: AB; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Canadian Security Intelligence Service
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint (inquiry) / Confidentiality Motion Ruling
Outcome
Confidentiality order granted with conditions
Legal Topics
Confidentiality Orders, Open Court Principle, Anonymization of Identities, Section 18 CSIS Act, Sierra Club Test
Source Language
English
Human Rights National Security Administrative Law Criminal Law Confidentiality Orders Open Court Principle Anonymization of Identities Section 18 CSIS Act +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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AB

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Canadian Security Intelligence Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint (inquiry) / Confidentiality Motion Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.18(1) CSIS Act bars disclosure of identities and requires anonymization
  2. 2 Whether disclosure would pose a real and substantial risk to national security
  3. 3 Whether the Sierra Club/Sherman Estate test is met to justify restricting open hearings

Ratio Decidendi

Applying the Sierra Club/Sherman Estate framework, the Tribunal found that disclosure of identities covered by s.18(1) posed a serious risk to national security, that anonymization by pseudonym/consistent random initials and position titles was necessary and the least intrusive means, and that confidentiality in limited form (including confidential disclosure of full names to counsel or the Commission where necessary) is proportionate; accordingly a s.52 CHRA confidentiality order was granted limited to employees engaged in covert operational activities, including the Complainant.

Court Disposition

Confidentiality order granted with conditions

Orders

  • Any information identifying the Complainant or any current or past CSIS employee who was, is or is likely to become engaged in covert operational activities of CSIS is designated confidential information under s.52 of the CHRA.
  • The Complainant will be identified only by the pseudonym "AB" in all documents, pleadings, correspondence and Tribunal rulings and decisions until further order.