Privacy Versus Public Interest: Anonymity at the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal
January 30, 2025
Article by:
Elizabeth Lotfali
Previously printed in the LexisNexis Labour Notes Newsletter.
Complaint proceedings before the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) are presumptively public.
Parties to a proceeding can apply to limit the publication of any identifying information when they can demonstrate that their privacy interests outweigh the public interest in full access to the Tribunal’s proceedings.
Facts
In the case of Ng v. City of Vancouver (No. 2), 2024 BCHRT 228, Giana Ng filed a complaint with the Tribunal and alleged discrimination on the basis of mental disability in the course of her employment.
She applied under Rule 5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure to limit the publication of her personal identifying information in any written Tribunal decision and also to redact her personal information from any part of her file that could be made available to the public.
The City of Vancouver (the “City”) opposed the application. It argued that Ng’s privacy interests did not outweigh the public interest in the Tribunal’s proceedings.
Ms. Ng argued that if her information were to be made public, she would experience barriers in securing employment in her active search for other work. She said that prospective employers might assume she is unfit to work due to her alleged mental disability. She also said that having information about her disability available publicly might potentially damage her professional reputation.
The City argued that potential harm to employment prospects does not support anonymization. It also said the case did not implicate the kind of considerations that might involve a heightened privacy interest.
Decision
The Tribunal denied Ms. Ng’s application to limit publication.
The Tribunal found that she had not made any specific argument about how stigma associated with her alleged mental disability would apply in her circumstances, and instead offered general speculation about future barriers to employment.
With Ms. Ng’s hearing scheduled for less than two months from her application, the Tribunal highlighted that the details of the complaint had been in the public domain for almost a year. Allowing the application to limit publication was not practical at this late stage in the proceedings because what Ms. Ng sought to protect was already accessible to the public.
Notwithstanding Ms. Ng’s argument to the effect that she would potentially experience negative effects on her health such as stress and anxiety related to public exposure, the Tribunal held that factor did not increase the weight of her privacy interests where the information was already in the public sphere.
Takeaways
- Privacy interests need to be made out on clear and concrete evidence. Mere assertions of potential harm will not be sufficient.
- Parties seeking to apply to limit publication should do so as early as possible and ideally before personal identifying information is released into the public domain.
While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy in this article, you are urged to seek specific advice on matters of concern and not to rely solely on what is contained herein. The article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
January 30, 2025
Previously printed in the LexisNexis Labour Notes Newsletter.
Complaint proceedings before the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) are presumptively public.
Parties to a proceeding can apply to limit the publication of any identifying information when they can demonstrate that their privacy interests outweigh the public interest in full access to the Tribunal’s proceedings.
Facts
In the case of Ng v. City of Vancouver (No. 2), 2024 BCHRT 228, Giana Ng filed a complaint with the Tribunal and alleged discrimination on the basis of mental disability in the course of her employment.
She applied under Rule 5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure to limit the publication of her personal identifying information in any written Tribunal decision and also to redact her personal information from any part of her file that could be made available to the public.
The City of Vancouver (the “City”) opposed the application. It argued that Ng’s privacy interests did not outweigh the public interest in the Tribunal’s proceedings.
Ms. Ng argued that if her information were to be made public, she would experience barriers in securing employment in her active search for other work. She said that prospective employers might assume she is unfit to work due to her alleged mental disability. She also said that having information about her disability available publicly might potentially damage her professional reputation.
The City argued that potential harm to employment prospects does not support anonymization. It also said the case did not implicate the kind of considerations that might involve a heightened privacy interest.
Decision
The Tribunal denied Ms. Ng’s application to limit publication.
The Tribunal found that she had not made any specific argument about how stigma associated with her alleged mental disability would apply in her circumstances, and instead offered general speculation about future barriers to employment.
With Ms. Ng’s hearing scheduled for less than two months from her application, the Tribunal highlighted that the details of the complaint had been in the public domain for almost a year. Allowing the application to limit publication was not practical at this late stage in the proceedings because what Ms. Ng sought to protect was already accessible to the public.
Notwithstanding Ms. Ng’s argument to the effect that she would potentially experience negative effects on her health such as stress and anxiety related to public exposure, the Tribunal held that factor did not increase the weight of her privacy interests where the information was already in the public sphere.
Takeaways
- Privacy interests need to be made out on clear and concrete evidence. Mere assertions of potential harm will not be sufficient.
- Parties seeking to apply to limit publication should do so as early as possible and ideally before personal identifying information is released into the public domain.
While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy in this article, you are urged to seek specific advice on matters of concern and not to rely solely on what is contained herein. The article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.