In Complainant v Edmonton Police Service, 2026 AHRC 120 (Oshionebo) the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal granted the complainant’s application to anonymize any decisions issued by the Tribunal in this matter.
This decision provides helpful guidance on the Tribunal’s considerations in determining what may constitute “exceptional circumstances” in the context of anonymizing Tribunal decisions.
Facts
The following were the pertinent facts summarized by the AHRT:
- The complainant police officer filed a complaint against his employer, Edmonton Police Service (“EPS“), alleging discrimination in the area of employment on the protected grounds of mental and physical disability
- The complainant filed two additional complaints alleging in one that the EPS discriminated against him by transferring him to another unit based on his disability, and in the other that EPS retaliated against him for filing the first complaint
- The complaints are scheduled for a hearing from December 7 to 11, 2026
- On July 24, 2026, EPS filed an application for summary dismissal of the complaints on the basis the complainant refused to accept a fair and reasonable offer of settlement
- On July 24, 2026, the complainant filed an application to anonymize their name in any decision issued in this matter
- The application to anonymize was requested because in the complaint’s response to EPS’ application for summary dismissal, the complainant intended to rely on detailed evidence concerning his medical condition and disability
Analysis / Conclusion
The sole issue to be determined was whether the complainant had established “exceptional circumstances” warranting anonymization of the Tribunal’s decision(s) in the complaints.
As a general rule, parties to human rights complaints are named in the style of cause and disclosed to the public, unless there are exceptional circumstances warranting the anonymization of the Tribunal’s decisions. The Tribunal referred to the Tribunal Practice Direction: Requests for Anonymization of Tribunal Decisions which states that “in exceptional circumstances where highly personal and sensitive information is required to support the decision’s analysis and reasoning, the Tribunal may decide to anonymize the decision.” The onus is on the complainant to show there are exceptional circumstances that outweigh the public interest in open and transparent justice.
In determining whether exceptional circumstances existed in this case, the Tribunal considered the medical information provided in the complaints, which disclosed that, at the relevant time, the complainant experienced substance addiction, anxiety, depression, and PTSD. The complainant was also experiencing suicidal thoughts, which the Tribunal regarded as highly personal and sensitive information. The Tribunal held that this sensitive medical information may be relied on in the Tribunal’s analysis and reasoning. Member Oshionebo held that this qualified as an exceptional circumstance and was satisfied that safeguarding the complainant’s personal privacy outweighed the public interest in identifying the complainant by name.
Neither the Director nor EPS opposed the complainant’s request for anonymization and the request was made at an early stage before the complaints had been heard on the merits. Given the highly sensitive nature of the medical information provided and the fact that the complainant is a police officer, the Tribunal considered the potential for reputational harm. The Tribunal also reasoned that anonymizing the complainant’s name still allowed the public to access the decision(s) without disclosing the complainant’s name.
Accordingly, the complainant’s application for anonymization of the Tribunal’s decision(s) was granted.
My Take
Given the highly sensitive nature of the medical information disclosed, and the potential for reputational harm to the complainant as a police officer, I’m happy to see that the application for anonymization was granted.
Human rights complaints can require individuals to disclose deeply personal medical information in order to advance their claims. In circumstances like these, the prospect of having that information publicly connected to a complainant’s name could reasonably deter individuals from pursuing legitimate complaints. This decision strikes an appropriate balance between protecting a complainant’s privacy in exceptional circumstances and maintaining the public’s access to the Tribunal’s decisions.
Bow River Law provides these regular legal blog articles for the purposes of legal news, education and research for the public and the legal profession. These articles should be considered general information and not legal advice. If you have a legal problem, you should speak to a lawyer directly.
This blog post is an original work of Bow River Law LLP. The original publication of this article is on Bow River Law’s website blog.
