R.C. v. Maple Leaf Pancake House, 2010 HRTO 1075

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

R. C. by her Next Friend S. C. Applicant

-and-

Maple Leaf Pancake House Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Keene Date: May 7, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 1075 Indexed as: R.C. v. Maple Leaf Pancake House

1The applicant, who is the Next Friend of the claimant, a child under the age of majority, filed an Application on March July 22, 2009 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the "Code"). The Application alleges discrimination in respect of employment on the basis of sex. The allegations include a claim that the claimant was touched inappropriately by a co-worker on several occasions, and that she was dismissed from her weekend job after her mother made a complaint about this to the employer.

2On November 19, 2009, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings. The applicant requested that the Tribunal use only initials to identify the applicant and the claimant in order to protect the best interests of the minor child involved. The Request also noted that the employee whose alleged actions are at issue in the Application is known to the applicant only by his first name. The applicant requested an order requiring the respondent to provide the last name and address of the employee, so that the applicant can apply to add the employee to the Application as the respondent.

3The form used to notify the respondent of the Request, Form 10, indicates that the Response to a Request must be filed not later than 14 days after receipt of the request. To date there has been no response from the respondent.

Anonymization

4In C.M. v. York Region District School Board, 2009 HRTO 735 the Tribunal allowed a request for anonymization in a case involving a child, citing potential stigma relating to the Application, the fact that the child has no decision-making power in the proceedings, and the special importance of protecting children in our legal system. The Tribunal noted (at para 26):

...the onus on an applicant to justify anonymization is less onerous than to establish a publication ban, which places restrictions on what others may do and directly infringes their expressive freedom. The use of initials will only affect the text provided by the Tribunal to the parties and the public, including the Canadian Legal Information Institute, on whose web site the Tribunal's decisions are published.

5The use of initials in the Tribunal's decisions is justified in the circumstances of this case, considering that published decisions on both procedure and merits may reveal allegations and facts that could expose the young claimant to stigma.

Information from records of employment

6The applicant has clearly delineated the day at issue, and indicated that the first name of the employee allegedly involved was "Jimmy".

7Pursuant to Rule 1.7(p) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may require a party to produce information in order to provide for the fair, just and expeditious resolution of a matter before it.

8In order to enable the employee to be notified that the applicant wishes to name him as a respondent, the Tribunal orders the corporate respondent to search its records and provide the applicant and the Tribunal, on or before May 14, 2010, with the name and current address of anyone employed by it between October 19 2008 and November 29, 2008 who was referred to as "Jimmy". If the respondent is unable to provide a current address, it will provide the applicant and the Tribunal with the most recent address of any employee fitting the above description. If no records are found, the respondent is to advise the Tribunal and the applicant of this by the same date.

9I am not seized of this matter.