A.G. v. Taylor Statten Camp Company Ltd., 2012 HRTO 1449

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

A.G. by his Next Friend J.S. Applicant

-and-

The Taylor Statten Camp Company Ltd. and Camp Hurontario Respondents

A N D B E T W E E N:

A.H. by his Next Friend T.T. Applicant

-and-

The Taylor Statten Camp Company Ltd. and Camp Hurontario Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: July 24, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1449 Indexed as: A.G. v. Taylor Statten Camp Company Ltd.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

A.H. by his Next Friend T.T. and A.G. by his Next Friend J.S., Applicants Self-represented

The Taylor Statten Camp Company Ltd., Respondent Ellen A. S. Low, Counsel

Camp Hurontario, Respondent Pauline Marston, Representative

Introduction

1These are two Applications filed 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 goods and services because of disability. This Interim Decision deals with the applicants’ requests that initials be used in communications by or with the Tribunal about this case as well as Requests to consolidate these Applications.

Request to Anonymize

2The applicants are both minors. The allegations in the Application are that the Applicants were both denied admission to a camp operated by the respondent because of a disability or perceived disability.

3In support of their requests, the next friends note that the applicants are minors and that they are persons with a disability and wish to avoid any possible stigma that could result from publicity. They argue that for the anonymization to be effective, the next friends’ names must also be anonymized as the two applicants may be linked to them.

4The respondents filed no submissions in response to the applicants’ requests and they are therefore unopposed.

5In C.M. v. York Region District School Board, 2009 HRTO 735, at paras. 20-21, the Tribunal discussed open justice and the recognition of the best interests of children as follows:

Open Justice

I agree with the respondents that this Request raises important issues about the openness of the Tribunal process. An open justice system is a fundamental principle of a free and democratic society, so that the actions of those responsible for interpreting and enforcing the law may be subject to public scrutiny. Moreover, the principles enshrined in the Code are quasi-constitutional rights which are recognized as particularly significant in Canadian society. It is important for there to be public scrutiny when respondents found to have violated these rights and also when accusations of discrimination are made by applicants but not upheld. I agree with the respondents that it is a serious matter to be accused of breaching the Code, which may also cause stress and stigma. Without good reasons for doing so, parties should not make or defend allegations from behind a veil of anonymity, assured that they will not be identified if they are found not credible, their allegations are rejected or they are held to have violated the Code. Effective public scrutiny of this human rights system depends, in part, upon knowing how the Tribunal addresses the particularly parties before it. Openness and free expression are of fundamental importance in our legal and human rights systems.

The Best Interests of Children

In this case, the applicant is a child. This is significant for two reasons. First, attention to children’s best interests and recognition of their vulnerability are, like openness, fundamental values in our legal system. As noted in Baker v. Canada (Minister Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817 at para. 67, “Children’s rights, and attention to their interests, are central humanitarian and compassionate values in Canadian society”. As the Supreme Court stated in Baker at para. 71, numerous international instruments have “placed special importance on protections for children and childhood”. Second, unlike adult litigants, a child does not make decisions for herself or himself about the Application. The decisions to commence it, what evidence to call and arguments to make, and whether to settle, to name just a few, are usually made on his or her behalf by a parent or guardian.

6In C.M., the Tribunal found that the potential stigma to the applicant of the proceedings, in light of the fact that the applicant was a minor, justified the anonymization of her name in the Tribunal’s decisions. In my view, this is also true in the present case. The nature of the applicants’ disabilities and other personal information about the applicants will be an important part of the issues in the proceeding. In my view, the protection of the children’s highly personal information and the potential stigma of disclosing it outweigh the important principle of open justice.

7On the basis of the material before me the Tribunal grants the applicants’ Requests for anonymization. The Tribunal’s communications to the parties from this point forward, and any decisions in these cases, will use initials in place of the applicants’ and next friends’ names.

Request to Consolidate

8The applicants and the respondent Taylor Statten Camp Company Ltd. have filed Requests to Consolidate these Applications. The respondent Camp Hurontario has consented to the consolidation. Rule 1.7(d) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that, in order to provide for the fair, just and expeditious resolution of any matter before it, the Tribunal may consolidate or hear applications together.

9In Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 25, the Tribunal adopted the decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in Lattey v. Canadian Pacific Railway, 2002 CanLII 45928 (C.H.R.T.), which set out the factors that should be considered in deciding whether to consolidate or hear proceedings together:

(a) The public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings, including considerations of expense, delay, the convenience of the witnesses, reducing the need for the repetition of evidence, and the risk of inconsistent results;

(b) The potential prejudice to the respondents that could result from a single hearing, including the lengthening of the hearing for each respondent as issues unique to the other respondent are dealt with, and the potential for confusion that may result from the introduction of evidence that may not relate to the allegations specifically involving one respondent or the other; and

(c) Whether there are common issues of fact or law.

10Except for the names of the applicants, these are identical Applications, involving the same allegations and same respondent. There is a compelling public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings and, accordingly, the Tribunal orders these Applications consolidated.

11I am not seized of this matter.