Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Choose your role:
Charlene Aquilina v Middlesex Standard Condominium Corporation No. 823 - 2019 ONCAT 22 - 2019-07-19
Corporation:
CAMSCC 823
Date:
2019-07-19
Summary:
The case of Charlene Aquilina v Middlesex Standard Condominium Corporation No 823 highlights the importance of balancing individual privacy interests with the principle of public access to decisions made by tribunals. In this case, the applicant requested to have her name redacted from the published decision, citing concerns about abuse and privacy. However, the Tribunal found that she failed to demonstrate that her interests outweighed the public's right to full access to the decision and dismissed her motion. The decision emphasizes the importance of providing evidence to support claims of invasion of privacy and other concerns when requesting anonymity in tribunal decisions.
Under:
CAT Decisions - Motion Order
Verdict:
The case of Charlene Aquilina v Middlesex Standard Condominium Corporation No 823 highlights the importance of privacy concerns and the principle of public access to tribunal decisions. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's interests in having her name redacted from the published decision did not outweigh the principle of public access to Tribunal decisions. The case emphasizes the need for providing evidence to support claims of privacy concerns and the importance of informed decisions and consent.
Takeaways:
Balancing privacy and public access: The case highlights the balancing act between an individual's privacy interests and the principle of public access to tribunal decisions. In this case, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not demonstrate that her interests in having her name redacted from the published decision outweighed the public's right to access the decision.
Need for evidence: The Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing evidence to support claims of invasion of privacy and other concerns when requesting anonymity in tribunal decisions. The applicant failed to support her assertions with any evidence, resulting in the dismissal of her motion.
Open court principle: The Tribunal referred to the open court principle, which prioritizes public access to decisions of courts and tribunals. It stated that the personal information and privacy concerns are secondary to the fundamental principle of open courts, and confidentiality should only be protected where necessary to protect important interests.
Apprehension of violence or abuse: The Tribunal noted that while the risk of violence or abusive behavior is an important interest, it must be reasonably supported by evidence. In this case, the applicant did not provide evidence to substantiate her concerns about violence or abuse.
Recommendations:
Consider providing evidence to support claims of privacy concerns: If one is seeking to have their name redacted from a published decision, they should provide evidence to support their claims of privacy concerns. In this case, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated that her interests in having her name removed from the published decision outweighed the principle that the public should have full access to decisions of the Tribunal including the names of the parties.
Understand the importance of informed decisions: Parties should be aware that the Tribunal's policy is to disclose the names of the parties in decisions. As such, they should make informed decisions as to whether they consent to the use of their name before proceeding with the hearing. In this case, the applicant was aware that her name was going to be published in the decision and she elected to proceed on that basis.
Be aware of the relevance of privacy concerns: Privacy concerns are important, such as the risk of violence or abusive behavior, but they must be appropriately supported by evidence. In this case, the applicant did not provide evidence that publishing her name would create a risk of violence or abuse. Therefore, it is important to establish that privacy concerns are well-founded and supported by evidence before requesting the Tribunal to redact one's name from a decision.