E.F. v. Correctional Service of Canada

E.F. v. Correctional Service of Canada

Applying the three-part Sherman Estate test informed by s. 52(1)(c) CHRA, the Tribunal found that disclosure of the Complainant's transgender status and related personal information would pose a real and substantial risk of undue hardship and affront to dignity; no less intrusive measures (such as redaction of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2023 CHRT 15
Parties
Complainant: E.F.; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Correctional Service of Canada
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint / Ruling on Anonymization Request
Outcome
Anonymization order granted
Legal Topics
Anonymization, Open Court Principle, Gender Identity Discrimination, Publication Ban, Intersectionality
Source Language
english
Human Rights Law Privacy Law Administrative Law Anonymization Open Court Principle Gender Identity Discrimination Publication Ban Intersectionality

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E.F.

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Correctional Service of Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint / Ruling on Anonymization Request

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether disclosure of the Complainant's identity poses a real and substantial risk of undue hardship and engages an important public interest
  2. 2 Whether less intrusive measures than anonymization could prevent the risk while preserving open court values
  3. 3 Whether the benefits of anonymization outweigh its negative effects in proportionality terms

Ratio Decidendi

Applying the three-part Sherman Estate test informed by s. 52(1)(c) CHRA, the Tribunal found that disclosure of the Complainant's transgender status and related personal information would pose a real and substantial risk of undue hardship and affront to dignity; no less intrusive measures (such as redaction of substantive content) would preserve transparency while protecting identity; and the public interest in safeguarding dignity outweighed any limited public interest in knowing identity. Therefore an anonymization order redacting identifying information and limiting disclosure was justified and granted.

Court Disposition

Anonymization order granted

Orders

  • The Complainant must be referred to as E.F. throughout these proceedings, including in motions, submissions, hearings, rulings and decisions, and any other documents filed in the Tribunal’s official record of these proceedings.
  • The Complainant’s identifying information, including her preferred name, her dead name, the names of her family members, and her date of birth, will be kept confidential throughout these proceedings, including in motions, submissions, hearings, rulings and decisions, and any other documents filed in the Tribunal’s...