HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
S. G.
Applicant
-and-
D.C., E.S., K. H. and N. G.
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Naomi Overend
Indexed as: S.G. v. D.C.
1This is an Application filed on April 12, 2010, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in the provision of goods, services or facilities on the basis of sex.
Request to Add a Respondent
2The applicant named a number of individual respondents in her Application, but initially did not provide addresses for all of them. The Tribunal notified her that it could not serve the Application until such time as it had addresses for anyone named as a respondent. The applicant provided addresses for some of the individuals, but was unable to provide addresses for others and so they were not included in her Application.
3Shortly after the Tribunal served the Application, the applicant brought a Request for Order During Proceedings asking to amend her Application to add an individual respondent, Lynn Kerr, for whom she did not have an address. As she did not have an address for this individual, she did not serve a copy of her Request for Order on Ms Kerr. None of the other respondents, on whom she did serve the Request for Order, filed a Response to her Request.
4The Tribunal held in Smyth v. Toronto Police Services, 2009 HRTO 1513, that when determining a request to add a respondent, the Tribunal should consider the following three questions:
(1) Are there allegations made that could support a finding that the proposed respondent violated the Code?
(2) If the proposed respondent is an individual and an organization is also named, is there a compelling reason to include him or her as a respondent?
(3) Would it be fair, in all the circumstances, to add the proposed respondent?
5In answer to the third question, it would not be fair to add the proposed respondent as that individual has not been served with the Request for Order, and, as far as the Tribunal knows, has had no notice of the Request to add her as a party to the Application.
6Although the fairness issue is determinative of this Request, the Tribunal notes that there appear to be no allegations in the Application that could lead to a finding that the proposed respondent violated the Code. This individual is not named in the Application, and there are no particulars included in the Request to add this individual as a respondent that indicate how this individual is implicated.
7Accordingly, the request to add Lynn Kerr is denied.
Anonymization of the Minor Respondent
8The applicant names a minor, E.S., who is the son of D.C., as a respondent to her Application. E.S. is sixteen years old. Rule 3.11.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure state that the Tribunal will use initials to identify children under age 18 in its decisions. This Rule also states that the Tribunal “may use initials to identify other proceeding if necessary to protect the identity of children.”
9In accordance with this Rule, any decisions in this matter will use initials in place of the respondent E.S., and his mother, D.C.
Request for Submissions on Removing E.S. as a Respondent
10Even with the anonymization, there continues to be an issue whether E.S. is properly named as a respondent to these proceedings. The Tribunal directs the parties to provide submissions on the following questions:
As a minor, can E.S. be named as a party to these proceedings?
Are there reasons for continuing against E.S. in this proceeding given the nature of the allegations?
11With respect to the second question, the Tribunal directs the parties to the factors set out in Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 31 (“Persaud”), at para. 5. The parties may, of course, refer to other relevant case law. The Tribunal’s decisions, including Persaud, are freely accessible on the website at www.canlii.org.
12The applicant shall have 14 days from the date of this Interim Decision to serve on the named respondents and file with the Tribunal her submissions on whether E.S. should remain as a respondent to these proceedings. The respondents shall have 28 days from the date of this Interim Decision to serve on the other parties and file with the Tribunal their submissions on this issue.
13I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 26th day of October, 2010.
”signed by”_____________________
Naomi Overend
Vice-chair