Jonathan Cann v. Rona Ontario Inc., 2011 HRTO 1298

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Jonathan Cann

Applicant

-and-

Rona Ontario Inc.

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Jonathan Cann

Applicant

-and-

Rona Ontario Inc., Rona Inc. and Noble Trade Inc.

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: July 6, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1298

Indexed as: Cann v. Rona Ontario

1The applicant filed an Application on July 27, 2009 (“the 2009 Application”) alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The 2009 Application concerns the treatment leading up to and including his termination from employment on July 19, 2009.

2The applicant filed a second Application on September 13, 2010 (“the 2010 Application”) alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal contrary to the Code. The 2010 Application concerns an alleged failure to offer him an interview or hire him in four separate job competitions.

3The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s Request for Orders During Proceeding (Form 10) seeking extensive production from the respondents and seeking to anonymize his identity.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

4The applicant seeks extensive production of documents from the respondents, as well as will-say statements. Specifically, he states:

Since this matter will likely be going to a hearing, as noted above the Applicant submits that the Tribunal should require the Respondents to provide all statements, documents and particulars as articulated above to allow the Applicant to understand the Respondent’s claims, allagations [sic] and denials in preparation for the hearing on this matter.

5The applicant’s request is premature as this matter has not yet been scheduled for a hearing. Once the Notice of Hearing is sent to the parties, it will trigger certain disclosure and production requirements pursuant to Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. These deadlines will be clearly set out in the Notice.

6If, after receiving the respondents’ disclosure of arguably relevant documents and documents on which they intend to rely in the hearing (as well as their witness lists), the applicant remains concerned that documents or information are missing, he may seek production at that stage.

7The applicant’s request for production at this stage is denied.

ANONYMIZATION

8The applicant seeks to have his identity anonymized in this proceeding in order to protect his identity as well as the identity of his infant child. I would note that, unlike the cases on which he relies in support of his request, neither of these Applications are about his child. The fact that he happens to have a child is not a sufficient reason to anonymize the applicant’s identity.

9Moreover, the applicant relies on the fact that this case involves sensitive and private medical conditions. This, however, has not been the basis for anonymizing the identity of the applicant in previous applications, despite the fact that applicants before this Tribunal frequently rely on evidence disclosing sensitive medical information.

10Finally, the applicant notes that there is “a potential risk to his ability to secure future employment if it becomes known that he is disabled.” Again, despite the fact that many of the applications to this Tribunal involve applicants with disabilities, the Tribunal has not anonymized their identity, even though many of them would be seeking future employment. The risk identified by the applicant is too speculative and does not outweigh the principle of openness that governs this Tribunal.

11The applicant requests, in the alternative, that any information concerning his identity (such as his Social Insurance Number or his banking information) or his medical information (such as his medical diagnosis) be redacted (i.e., blacked out) from “past and future communications and Decisions by or with the Tribunal.” It has not been necessary to include this information in previous decisions of this Tribunal. I see no basis for granting the relief requested at this point.

12Accordingly, the applicant’s request to anonymize his identity and/or redact information concerning his identity or medical condition from communications and decisions is denied.

13I am not seized of this matter.