VadeLab
AllowedCanadian Human Rights Tribunal·

Human Rights Tribunal Approves Limited Disclosure of Hearing Audio

Case No. 2024 CHRT 125 · Member Jennifer Khurana

📌 In brief

In a human rights case before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, a person was permitted to provide an audio recording of the hearing to a court a person for transcription. This decision is conditional on redacting sensitive information as required by law.

⚖️ Legal holding

A respondent may vary a publication ban if the purpose is limited and consensual among parties.

Topics

human rightspublication bans

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Canadian Human Rights Act s.7 — Employment

This rule says that it is against the law for an employer to refuse to hire someone, fire them, or treat them unfairly during their job because of a prohibited reason.

Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal allows a person to disclose an audio recording for transcription, subject to redactions.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal allows the respondent to disclose an audio recording for transcription, subject to redactions that protect information under court-ordered bans and confidentiality orders.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Tribunal canadien des droits de la personne Citation: 2024 [NAME] 125 Date: November 8, 2024 File No. : T2458/1520 Between: [RESPONDENT] - and – Canadian Human Rights Commission Commission - and – [NAME] Respondent Ruling Member: [NAME]. OVERVIEW [ 1 ] This ruling grants [NAME] ([NAME])’s request to vary the Tribunal’s publication ban that was previously ordered in this case ( [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] v. Correctional Service Canada , 2024 [NAME] 86 [the “Publication Ban”]). The Publication Ban mirrors court-ordered bans in the criminal proceedings involving Mr. [RESPONDENT], the [RESPONDENT], as well as [NAME]. [NAME] was a [RESPONDENT] in these proceedings at the time the Tribunal issued the publication ban. The Tribunal has since dismissed Mr. [NAME] complaint (2024 [NAME] 114). [ 2 ] [NAME] wants the Tribunal to vary its order prohibiting the disclosure of the audio recording of the hearing to anyone other than the parties and their counsel so that it can provide a copy to a court [NAME] for transcription. Mr. [RESPONDENT] and the Commission consent to [NAME]’s request. [ 3 ] [NAME]’s request to vary the publication ban is allowed. [NAME] may disclose the audio recording of the hearing in this matter to a court [NAME] for transcription.

II.

REASONS [ 4 ] [NAME] has identified the limited purpose for which it seeks to disclose the audio recording of the proceedings. If [NAME] intends to use the transcript prepared by their court [NAME], it must provide copies to the Tribunal as well as the other parties, at its own cost (see Tribunal’s Practice Direction on recording hearings, use of court reporters and transcripts, available at https://[NAME] [ 5 ] Before providing a copy to the Tribunal or to the other parties, [NAME] must review the transcript and redact any information that is the subject of a court-ordered ban on publication and that identifies a [RESPONDENT], victim or witness from Mr. [RESPONDENT] or [NAME]’ criminal proceedings. Although the Tribunal’s digital recording remains the authoritative record of what was said at the hearing, a transcript provided to the Tribunal is part of the record of the proceeding and is available to the public subject to the terms of any confidentiality order (Rule 47 of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Rules of Procedure, 2021 ). [ 6 ] All other orders set out in the Tribunal’s Publication Ban remain in place.

III.

ORDER [ 7 ] [NAME] may disclose the audio recording of the hearing in this matter to a court [NAME] for transcription. [ 8 ] If [NAME] intends to use the transcript prepared by its court [NAME], it must provide a copy to the Tribunal and to the other parties at its own cost. [NAME] must first redact the transcript of any information that is the subject of a court-ordered ban on publication and that identifies a [RESPONDENT], victim or witness from Mr. [RESPONDENT] and [NAME]’ criminal proceedings. [ 9 ] This order and the rest of the Publication Ban apply indefinitely unless otherwise ordered. Signed by [NAME] Tribunal Member Ottawa, Ontario November 8, 2024 Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Parties of Record File No. : T2458/1520 Style of Cause: [RESPONDENT] v. Correctional Service Canada Ruling of the Tribunal Dated: November 8, 2024 Appearances: [NAME], [RESPONDENT], and [RESPONDENT] [NAME] , for the [RESPONDENT] [NAME] and [RESPONDENT] [NAME] , for the Canadian Human Rights Commission [NAME] [RESPONDENT], and [RESPONDENT] , for the Respondent

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

  • The purpose of varying a publication ban is limited and consensual among parties.
  • A party seeking to adjourn a hearing must establish that the hearing cannot proceed fairly, considering the balance of prejudice between parties.
  • A complainant in a human rights case is entitled to have their allegations considered by the tribunal, provided they are not speculative or frivolous.
  • A respondent's motion to strike certain allegations from a statement of particulars is evaluated based on the principles guiding the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.
  • An organization may be held vicariously liable for the discriminatory acts of its officers or agents if they were committed in the course of their employment.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal allowed the respondent to disclose an audio recording for transcription, with certain conditions.

Who was involved?

A complainant and Correctional Service of Canada were parties in a human rights case before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

How did the court decide, and why?

The decision was made to balance transparency with confidentiality requirements, ensuring sensitive information is protected.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Canadian Human Rights Act, section 7, and the Tribunal's Practice Direction on recording hearings were considered.

What argument mattered most?

The respondent argued for a limited disclosure of the audio recording to facilitate transcription while respecting confidentiality orders.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was neutral, allowing the respondent's request with conditions agreed upon by all parties.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Parties may seek to vary publication bans if there is a clear and limited purpose for disclosure, such as transcription.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The court-ordered ban on the complainant's criminal proceedings was relevant to the decision.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Decisions from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal can sometimes be appealed to higher courts, depending on the circumstances.

Is it worth getting a lawyer for a case like this?

It is advisable to seek legal advice from a qualified lawyer for specific guidance and representation.

Official source: Canadian Human Rights Tribunal headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. It is a reproduction of an official work published by the Government of Canada, and the reproduction has not been produced in affiliation with, or with the endorsement of, the Government of Canada. It is not an official version.