G.G. v. 1489024 Ontario Ltd., 2012 HRTO 824

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

G.G.

Applicant

-and-

1489024 Ontario Ltd. o/a Image Printing and Signs and Noel Elias

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist

Date: April 24, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 824

Indexed as: G.G. v. 1489024 Ontario Ltd.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

G.G., Applicant ) Grace Vaccarelli, Counsel

1This Interim Decision addresses the Request for an Order during Proceedings (“RFOP”) made by the applicant asking that the name of the applicant (and her immediate family) be identified solely by their first and last initials in the Tribunal’s decisions provided to the parties and to the Canadian Legal Information Institute, on whose web site the Tribunal’s decisions are published.

2The applicant alleges in her Application that she was sexually harassed and experienced sexual solicitation in her workplace on June 10, 2009. She alleges that these allegations are based on the same facts that gave rise to a sexual assault for which the personal respondent was convicted in the criminal courts. I have a copy of the criminal court decision before me.

3The applicant submits the events of June 10, 2009 have been traumatic for her. She submits that her request for anonymity in order to protect her privacy and dignity outweighs the principles of open justice and transparency in hearings.

4The respondents have not filed a response to the applicant’s request for anonymization and the time for doing so has now passed.

5A hearing has been scheduled in this matter for May 30, and 31, 2012.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

6The applicant seeks an order pursuant to Rule 3.11 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure which states:

3.11 The Tribunal may make an order to protect the confidentiality of personal or sensitive information where it considers it appropriate to do so.

7The Tribunal’s practice has been to consider any request to keep the name of a party or other information confidential as an exception to the general principle that the Tribunal’s process should be open and transparent in accordance with the province’s legal system. See TA v. 60 Montclair, 2009 HRTO 369; S. and C. v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2008 HRTO 437. I therefore need to be satisfied that the applicant’s request to anonymize her identity outweighs the Tribunal’s interest in its processes being open and transparent.

8Allegations of sexual harassment often raise issues of a personal or sensitive nature. However, I agree with the Tribunal in its decision in Bartlett v. Hydro One Networks, 2012 HRTO 212, that not every Tribunal decision involving allegations of sexual harassment should be anonymized. The mere fact, then, that this Application alleges sexual harassment does not automatically trigger anonymization.

9However, I am satisfied in this case that the applicant’s request falls within one of the exceptional situations where it is appropriate to grant the request for anonymization. I find it significant that the applicant is basing her request not only on an allegation of sexual harassment but on the basis that she has already been subject to a sexual assault arising out of the facts that form the basis of her Application. I am satisfied that as a victim of a sexual assault it is appropriate that her identity be protected. The criminal court decision provided to me by the applicant suggests that there is a risk of disclosure of highly sensitive information.

10The applicant’s request is allowed. The Tribunal will refer to the applicant and her immediate family by their initials in order to protect their identities. This anonymization will be applied in all Tribunal decisions related to this case including any past decisions.