A Yukon court has rejected a hospitality company’s application to anonymize its name in a sexual assault lawsuit, ruling that potential reputational damage and business losses do not constitute important public interests worthy of limiting court openness.
Sodexo Canada sought to have its corporate name anonymized in a lawsuit filed by former employee B.C., who alleges she was sexually assaulted by a coworker and that supervisors failed to address her complaints while working at a Yukon mine site in 2021.
The Supreme Court of Yukon denied Sodexo’s application, finding the company failed to meet the legal test for limiting court openness established by the Supreme Court of Canada.
Individual names protected, corporate identity exposed
Justice K. Wenckebach had already ordered the anonymization of all individual parties in the case – including the alleged perpetrator K.P. and supervisors J.T. and R.G. – given the serious nature of the allegations. However, the court treated Sodexo’s corporate anonymization request differently.
“While publicly traded corporations have reputations and privacy interests, they do not have personal lives or dignity,” the court stated, distinguishing between individuals and corporations under privacy law.
B.C. alleges that while working for Sodexo at the mine site, K.P. “racially and sexually harassed her, and then sexually assaulted her.” She claims she complained to supervisors J.T. and R.G., who “did not address the harassment and assault, nor did they assist her when she sought time off for counselling.”
The lawsuit states other employees also harassed B.C. following the alleged sexual assault, ultimately forcing her to quit her job.
Company arguments rejected
Sodexo advanced two main arguments for anonymization. First, it claimed disclosure of its name would seriously risk its reputation, potentially causing current and future clients to avoid its services, leading to lost contracts and affecting employee salaries.
The court rejected this argument, finding that risk to corporate reputation does not constitute an important public interest. The judge noted that some risk to reputation and economic consequences “are not, without more, important public interests” in open court proceedings.
Sodexo operates across Canada with approximately 6,000 employees, providing hospitality services including food and facilities management to corporations, hospitals, schools and remote sites. The company is owned by publicly traded Sodexo S.A.
Workplace safety concerns insufficient
Sodexo’s second argument focused on workplace safety, claiming that publicity about the allegations would make female employees feel unsafe and deter women from applying for jobs with the company.
While the court agreed this represented an important public interest, it found Sodexo failed to establish a “serious risk.” The judge reasoned that female employees learning of the allegations would “measure the allegations against her own experience in the workplace” rather than automatically assuming unsafe conditions.
The court noted the original mine site where the alleged incidents occurred has since closed, making it unlikely employees would “immediately assume that the same situation would recur, with different supervisors, at different sites.”
Alternative measures available
The ruling emphasized that employers have tools to address safety concerns without limiting court openness. The court stated companies can “provide information to employees and potential employees about how it ensures female employees are not subject to harassment or abuse” and “explain the training it provides to supervisors to recognize and respond appropriately to harassment and abuse.”
“A corporation should work internally to address potential employees’ concerns before asking a judge to limit court openness,” the court concluded.
Media attention noted
The case has already attracted media attention. CBC published an article about the lawsuit in April 2023 with the headline “Woman sues Yukon mining contractor after alleged sexual assault: Conduct of food-services company Sodexo and 3 of its employees ‘morally reprehensible’, suit claims.”
Sodexo’s evidence indicated clients contacted the company after the article’s publication, and the company expressed concern about losing future contracts due to continued publicity.
Workers’ compensation disclosure permitted
While denying the main anonymization request, the court granted Sodexo’s secondary application regarding workers’ compensation proceedings. The ruling permits parties to disclose names to the Workers’ Safety and Compensation Board and Workers’ Safety and Compensation Appeal Tribunal when filing applications.
However, the court ordered these bodies to anonymize individual parties’ names in any published decisions related to the case, while allowing them to apply to set aside this requirement with 72 hours’ notice to the parties.
Legal framework applied
The court applied the three-part test from Sherman Estate v Donovan, which requires applicants seeking to limit court openness to demonstrate: court openness poses serious risk to an important public interest; the order is necessary because alternative measures won’t prevent the risk; and the benefits outweigh negative effects.
The ruling distinguished previous cases where corporate anonymization was granted, noting those involved professional service firms closely tied to individual practitioners whose reputations were “critical to a lawyer’s ability to practice their profession.”
For more information, see BC v KP, 2025 YKSC 34 (CanLII).
