A.B. v. Timbercreek Asset Management, 2012 HRTO 1297

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

A.B.

Applicant

-and-

Timbercreek Asset Management

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle

Date: June 29, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1297

Indexed as: A.B. v. Timbercreek Asset Management

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

A.B., Applicant

Self-represented

Timbercreek Asset Management, Respondent

Kristen Ley, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Application filed March 9, 2012, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to accommodation because of disability.

2The applicant has filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”), requesting that this matter be anonymized. She submits that her Application provides details of her medical information, as well as information related to her personal safety, and also submits that the disclosure of her name could affect her ability to secure housing in the future, due to her medical condition which she submits is stigmatized, and due to the fact that she is in receipt of “disability”. She requests therefore that the Application and any further proceedings, be deemed confidential. She cites TA v. 60 Montclair, 2009 HRTO 369 (“TA v. Montclair”), and XY v. Toronto Housing Connections, 2011 HRTO 1377, in support of her request.

3The respondent opposes her request to anonymize. It submits that the Tribunal must consider the importance of open justice and the openness of the Tribunal process. It cited C.M. v. York Region District School Board, 2009 HRTO 735, in support of its position. The respondent submitted that the Tribunal can redact intimate financial, medical or personal information from decisions and can conduct closed hearings when such information is to be addressed.

4The applicant has described circumstances in which she fears being stalked by an individual and has provided information in the form of a copy of a Peace Bond relating to the alleged stalking. She has also indicated that this individual has repeatedly attempted to locate her after the expiry of the Peace Bond. In this respect, the circumstances of this case are not unlike the circumstances in TA v. Montclair, where the Tribunal stated:

I need not decide whether the fact the applicant is in receipt of public assistance and has a number of medical conditions is sufficient to order anonymization. Tribunal jurisprudence does not support granting a request to anonymize, or for a publication ban, in the absence of clear evidence establishing why an order is necessary. However, I am satisfied that an order to anonymize is appropriate in this case on the basis of privacy interests related to the applicant being stalked.

5This Application is regarding the applicant’s housing and given the concern that a decision may make a reference to her or her housing situation which would make it easier for her stalker to locate her, I am satisfied, on balance, that it is fair and just to order that all decisions in this matter be anonymized.

6I am not seized.