A.B. and Gracie v. Correctional Service Canada

A.B. and Gracie v. Correctional Service Canada

The Tribunal applied Sherman Estate and s.52 CHRA and found that Complainant A demonstrated a real and substantial risk of undue hardship from disclosure, based on her transgender identity, non-public nature of that identity and recent reintegration; that risk outweighed the societal interest in openness for that information, warranting confidentiality orders. For Complainant B and the named/potential Sexual Offender Witnesses the record showed much identifying information already public and media risk was speculative, so s.52(1)(c) and s.52(1)(b) relief was not warranted; less intrusive measures (case management, redaction schedules, segregated offence history schedules, registry...

Citation
2022 CHRT 15
Parties
Complainant: A.B.; Complainant: Daniel Gracie; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Correctional Service Canada
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint (canadian Human Rights Tribunal) / Ruling on Confidentiality Motion (case Management)
Outcome
Motion granted in part: confidentiality orders limited to Complainant A; requests for Complainant B and Sexual Offender Witnesses denied at this time; case management safeguards and redaction procedures ordered; media need not be notified.
Legal Topics
Confidentiality Orders, Publication Ban, Section 52 CHRA, Open Court Principle, Indigenous Discrimination, Transgender Vulnerability, Sex Offender Privacy
Source Language
English
Human Rights Administrative/tribunal Procedure Privacy/publication Ban Confidentiality Orders Publication Ban Section 52 CHRA Open Court Principle Indigenous Discrimination +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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A.B.

Complainant

Daniel Gracie

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Correctional Service Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint (canadian Human Rights Tribunal) / Ruling on Confidentiality Motion (case Management)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.52(1)(c) permits confidentiality for Complainants and Sexual Offender Witnesses due to real and substantial risk of undue hardship
  2. 2 Whether s.52(1)(b) permits confidentiality because publicity would prejudice fairness of the inquiry
  3. 3 Whether the media should be notified of publication ban requests

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal applied Sherman Estate and s.52 CHRA and found that Complainant A demonstrated a real and substantial risk of undue hardship from disclosure, based on her transgender identity, non-public nature of that identity and recent reintegration; that risk outweighed the societal interest in openness for that information, warranting confidentiality orders. For Complainant B and the named/potential Sexual Offender Witnesses the record showed much identifying information already public and media risk was speculative, so s.52(1)(c) and s.52(1)(b) relief was not warranted; less intrusive measures (case management, redaction schedules, segregated offence history schedules, registry...

Court Disposition

Motion granted in part: confidentiality orders limited to Complainant A; requests for Complainant B and Sexual Offender Witnesses denied at this time; case management safeguards and redaction procedures ordered; media need not be notified.

Orders

  • Complainant A shall be anonymized as A.B. in all proceedings and in the style of cause
  • Complainant A Identifying Information and Offence History shall be kept confidential throughout these proceedings