The recent decision by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal in Ng v. City of Vancouver (No.2) highlights an ongoing and contentious debate: the balance between an individual’s right to privacy and the principle of transparency in public legal proceedings.
G.N., a former City of Vancouver employee, sought to have her name redacted from tribunal decisions related to her complaint that the city failed to accommodate her mental disability. She feared that the disclosure of her name, alongside details of her medical condition, could harm her job prospects and damage her professional reputation.
And it very well could. It’s easy to sympathize with the worker in this case. The stigma surrounding mental illness remains all too real, despite growing awareness and efforts to combat it. Mental health is one of those things that is easy to give lip service to in public, and then act very differently when the door closes.
Disclosing a mental health condition can provoke unwarranted assumptions, leading to prejudice in the workplace. Many individuals in G.N.’s position might understandably fear the personal and professional fallout from having such intimate details made public.
At HR Law Canada, we made the decision last year to stop using full names in news coverage in most cases. We’ve anonymized individuals by referring to them by their initials, but often the actual case citation will give some hint of who the person is, especially if they have a unique surname — can’t really steer around that identifier.
We did this because, as a news publication, HR Law Canada scores quite high in search results and we had received numerous complaints from plaintiffs and defendants about our article being the first thing that appears if you Google them. Fair enough. We don’t need the names to tell the stories and learn the lessons.
But that’s different than the official court records. While G.N.’s concerns are legitimate, they do not outweigh the vital importance of transparency in the legal process. The Tribunal’s decision to deny her request for anonymity was not only correct but necessary to uphold the broader public interest in an open and accountable justice system.
The principle that legal proceedings, including human rights cases, should be open to the public is deeply rooted in Canadian jurisprudence. It is a cornerstone of a democratic society. This openness ensures that justice is not only done but seen to be done. It fosters accountability, encourages fair decision-making, and builds public confidence in the institutions that uphold all of our rights.
At first glance, it might seem reasonable to argue that anonymizing her name would have little impact on the public’s ability to access the Tribunal’s process or its decisions. After all, the reasoning goes, the facts of the case would remain public, just with the complainant’s identity concealed. (The same reasoning we used in deciding to remove most names.)
But this argument misses the mark. Open access to legal proceedings is not merely about understanding the law — it’s about ensuring that all participants are held accountable for their actions, whether they are individuals, companies, or public institutions.
In Ng v. City of Vancouver, as in other human rights cases, the public has a legitimate interest in knowing who is involved. G.N., like anyone else, has a right to pursue justice through the legal system, but she also entered a public forum when she filed her complaint. Participation in such a forum comes with certain expectations, one of which is that her identity will not be concealed unless there are exceptional circumstances that justify it.
The Tribunal’s reasoning makes it clear that her circumstances, while deserving of empathy, do not meet the threshold for granting anonymity. In its decision, the Tribunal said she had not provided specific evidence to support her claims that revealing her identity would lead to harm. Her arguments were based on general fears rather than concrete risks.
As Tribunal Member Theressa Etmanski noted in the ruling: “It is not enough to assert that a person’s reputation may be tarnished.” Speculation about potential harm is not a strong enough basis for limiting the openness of legal proceedings.
This is an important point. There are many individuals who go through the justice system — whether in human rights tribunals, civil courts, or other legal bodies — who may feel uncomfortable with their personal information being exposed. Some may fear damage to their reputation, while others may be anxious about revisiting painful experiences in public. But as the Tribunal observed, loss of privacy is an inherent part of engaging with the legal process.
“Parties before the Tribunal, like those before the courts, face an inevitable loss of privacy with respect to the matters in issue between them,” Etmanski wrote in her decision.
We must be careful about creating exceptions to this rule. While there are certainly cases where anonymity is appropriate — such as matters involving children, sexual assault, or highly sensitive personal information — these must be limited to truly exceptional situations. Granting anonymity too freely risks eroding the public’s trust in the legal system, creating a sense that justice is being carried out in secret, shielded from scrutiny.
Moreover, limiting the publication of names in human rights cases would set a dangerous precedent. It could lead to an increasing number of complainants seeking anonymity, not necessarily because their cases involve sensitive information, but because they simply wish to avoid the public spotlight.
It could also open the floodgates to vexatious litigation by individuals who would be allowed to hide behind a veil of privacy.
While privacy is important, it is not an absolute right. It must be balanced against the need for transparency, particularly in cases involving public institutions. In Ng v. City of Vancouver, the public has a legitimate interest in knowing how the city handles accommodation requests for employees with disabilities.
If G.N. were allowed to proceed anonymously, it could hinder public understanding of the case and reduce accountability for the employer.
