A former Air Canada flight attendant has been partially granted a confidentiality order by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in her ongoing discrimination case against the airline.
The attendant, who has a mental illness, had requested comprehensive privacy measures, citing potential undue hardship if her personal and medical information were disclosed.
The tribunal ordered the redaction of her personal address, date of birth, phone number, social insurance number, and health card number from the case documents. However, the Tribunal denied her broader requests for anonymization and additional confidentiality, underscoring the high threshold required to override the principle of open court proceedings.
The flight attendant’s complaint stems from allegations that Air Canada discriminated against her based on her mental illness, which she argues falls under the protections of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Seeking to shield her identity and sensitive information, she submitted multiple requests for confidentiality, emphasizing the severe impact public disclosure could have on her life.
“All of my information especially the medical part remain confidential. I need complete privacy and confidentiality for everything,” the flight attendant wrote in a May 6 email to the Tribunal. She further elaborated on May 7, expressing that having her personal information public was unacceptable and questioning if anyone would be comfortable with their medical records made public.
Despite the Commission’s support for her anonymization request and standard redactions of personal identifiers, Air Canada opposed the motion, arguing against such measures. The Tribunal evaluated the flight attendant’s requests against the open court principle, which is integral to Canadian judicial proceedings.
“The CHRA states as a general principle that the Tribunal’s inquiries are public,” the tribunal wrote in the decision. It noted that confidentiality orders can be issued if there is “a real and substantial risk that the disclosure of personal or other matters will cause undue hardship” that outweighs the public interest in open proceedings.
The flight attendant’s plea for comprehensive confidentiality included a broad array of personal information, such as biometric data, medical records, and witness details. She argued that disclosure would expose her to risks like identity theft, fraud, and personal safety threats. However, the Tribunal found her motion too generalized and lacking specific evidence to substantiate these claims.
“(Her) motion is broad and does not specify what part of a document in her medical record would make her suffer undue hardship unless it is redacted and maintained confidential,” the tribunal stated. It emphasized that mere allegations of hardship cannot replace concrete evidence, especially given the high bar set for limiting court openness.
The decision referenced the Supreme Court of Canada’s reaffirmation of the open court principle in Sherman Estate v. Donovan, underscoring that any restriction must be justified by a serious risk to a public interest. The Tribunal found the flight attendant’s submissions insufficient to meet this standard.
While acknowledging the societal stigma associated with mental illness, the Tribunal highlighted that the worker herself introduced her medical condition as the basis of her discrimination complaint. “In the absence of any evidence, the Tribunal cannot justify departing from the open court principle,” it concluded.
The case will proceed with these limited confidentiality measures, as the Tribunal continues to address the merits of her discrimination allegations against Air Canada. The outcome of her complaint remains to be determined.
For more information, see Rizzo v. Air Canada, 2024 CHRT 90 (CanLII).
