Eadie v. MTS Inc.

Eadie v. MTS Inc.

Because the Commission did not consent, the Tribunal will not issue a consent confidentiality order; however the Tribunal has statutory authority under s.52 to make confidentiality orders and therefore adopts specific Confidentiality Guidelines governing designation, challenge, disclosure, in-camera procedure, and disposition of confidential documents; the request for an oral hearing on the jurisdictional motion is deferred pending written submissions.

Citation
2013 CHRT 5
Parties
Complainant: Ross Eadie; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: MTS Inc.
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint (disability Discrimination in Provision of Service) / Interim Ruling on Confidentiality Motion and Direction on Jurisdiction Motion (case Management Stage)
Outcome
No consent confidentiality order issued due to Commission's objection; Tribunal adopts Confidentiality Guidelines and grants protective framework under s.52; decision on whether to hold an oral hearing on jurisdiction deferred pending written submissions.
Legal Topics
Confidentiality Order, Tribunal Jurisdiction, Reasonable Accommodation, Descriptive Video Service, Procedural Guidelines for Confidential Filings
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Administrative Law Privacy and Confidentiality Disability Law Telecommunications Regulation Confidentiality Order Tribunal Jurisdiction Reasonable Accommodation +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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ross Eadie

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

MTS Inc.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint (disability Discrimination in Provision of Service) / Interim Ruling on Confidentiality Motion and Direction on Jurisdiction Motion (case Management Stage)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal may issue a confidentiality consent order absent the Commission's agreement
  2. 2 Whether information provided by third party vendors and suppliers qualifies as confidential under section 52(1)(c) of the Canadian Human Rights Act
  3. 3 What procedural mechanism should govern designation, challenge and disclosure of confidential documents

Ratio Decidendi

Because the Commission did not consent, the Tribunal will not issue a consent confidentiality order; however the Tribunal has statutory authority under s.52 to make confidentiality orders and therefore adopts specific Confidentiality Guidelines governing designation, challenge, disclosure, in-camera procedure, and disposition of confidential documents; the request for an oral hearing on the jurisdictional motion is deferred pending written submissions.

Court Disposition

No consent confidentiality order issued due to Commission's objection; Tribunal adopts Confidentiality Guidelines and grants protective framework under s.52; decision on whether to hold an oral hearing on jurisdiction deferred pending written submissions.

Orders

  • Tribunal adopts Confidentiality Guidelines governing filing, designation, challenge, disclosure and disposition of confidential materials as set out in the ruling
  • Parties must file designated confidential documents separately with an abridged public version and a detailed rationale explaining confidentiality