Eadie v. MTS Inc.

Eadie v. MTS Inc.

The Tribunal amended its prior Ruling by adopting procedural requirements: confidential material must be filed separately with the document provided to the Complainant, the Commission and counsel along with a detailed public‑interest rationale; confidential documents are disclosed only to the Complainant, the Respondent, their counsel and Commission counsel; requests to discuss confidential material at hearing trigger the Tribunal's discretion under s.52 to decide whether to proceed in camera; confidential documents cannot be used outside the present inquiry; and confidentiality designations remain in effect until the Tribunal orders otherwise, including through judicial review and appeal.

Citation
2013 CHRT 10
Parties
Complainant: Ross Eadie; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: MTS Inc.
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Disability / Interim Ruling
Outcome
Ruling amended: paragraphs 15 to 17 replaced to set out confidentiality filing, disclosure, in camera procedure, and duration of confidentiality designation.
Legal Topics
Confidentiality, In Camera Proceedings, Document Disclosure, Redaction, Procedural Orders
Source Language
English
Human Rights Disability Discrimination Administrative Law Confidentiality In Camera Proceedings Document Disclosure Redaction Procedural Orders

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ross Eadie

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

MTS Inc.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Disability / Interim Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal should amend confidentiality procedures to address difficulties in producing redacted copies
  2. 2 What procedures and protections apply to documents designated confidential in the inquiry
  3. 3 Whether confidential designations continue through judicial review and appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal amended its prior Ruling by adopting procedural requirements: confidential material must be filed separately with the document provided to the Complainant, the Commission and counsel along with a detailed public‑interest rationale; confidential documents are disclosed only to the Complainant, the Respondent, their counsel and Commission counsel; requests to discuss confidential material at hearing trigger the Tribunal's discretion under s.52 to decide whether to proceed in camera; confidential documents cannot be used outside the present inquiry; and confidentiality designations remain in effect until the Tribunal orders otherwise, including through judicial review and appeal.

Court Disposition

Ruling amended: paragraphs 15 to 17 replaced to set out confidentiality filing, disclosure, in camera procedure, and duration of confidentiality designation.

Orders

  • At the time a party files information it designates as confidential, it must provide the document to the Complainant, the Commission and their counsel along with an explanation of how the information falls into a category of confidential information and a detailed rationale explaining why disclosure is not in the...
  • Documents designated confidential shall be filed separately, clearly marked as confidential, and disclosed only to the Complainant, the Respondent, their counsel, and Commission counsel; any disclosure to others requires prior permission of the Tribunal.