A.B. and Gracie v. Correctional Service Canada

A.B. and Gracie v. Correctional Service Canada

The Tribunal granted anonymization because disclosure of the proposed witness's identifying information would create a real and substantial risk of severe undue hardship to her personal dignity and safety, the anonymity orders were necessary because no reasonable alternative would prevent that risk, and the orders were proportionate given minimal interference with open court objectives and the parties' agreed protective measures; therefore s.52(1)(c) CHRA and the Sherman Estate test are satisfied.

Citation
2024 CHRT 103
Parties
Complainant: A.B.; Complainant: Daniel Gracie; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Interested Party: Aboriginal Legal Services; Respondent: Correctional Service Canada
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Tribunal Proceeding (canadian Human Rights Tribunal) / Ruling on Motion for Confidentiality/anonymity
Outcome
Confidentiality/anonymity order granted
Legal Topics
Confidentiality Orders, Anonymity, Gender Identity Discrimination, Indigenous Rights, Open Court Principle, Section 52 CHRA Analysis
Source Language
English
Human Rights Corrections Law Administrative Law Privacy Law Confidentiality Orders Anonymity Gender Identity Discrimination Indigenous Rights +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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A.B.

Complainant

Daniel Gracie

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Aboriginal Legal Services

Interested Party

Correctional Service Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Tribunal Proceeding (canadian Human Rights Tribunal) / Ruling on Motion for Confidentiality/anonymity

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether disclosure of the proposed witness's identifying information would cause undue hardship under s.52(1)(c) of the CHRA
  2. 2 Whether the Sherman Estate three‑part test is met (serious risk to an important interest; necessity; proportionality)
  3. 3 Whether any reasonable alternative measures to anonymization exist

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal granted anonymization because disclosure of the proposed witness's identifying information would create a real and substantial risk of severe undue hardship to her personal dignity and safety, the anonymity orders were necessary because no reasonable alternative would prevent that risk, and the orders were proportionate given minimal interference with open court objectives and the parties' agreed protective measures; therefore s.52(1)(c) CHRA and the Sherman Estate test are satisfied.

Court Disposition

Confidentiality/anonymity order granted

Orders

  • The proposed witness shall be referred to as E.F. throughout these proceedings, including motions, submissions, hearings, rulings, decisions and all Tribunal records
  • E.F.'s identifying information, including preferred name, dead name, names of family members and date of birth, shall be kept confidential throughout these proceedings and redacted from public records