HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Jean-Alexandre De Bousquet Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, Anthony-Louis Bruno and Ryan Michael De Faria Respondents
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané Date: August 14, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1393 Indexed as: De Bousquet v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Jean-Alexandre De Bousquet, Applicant Self-represented
1On May 22, 2013, the Tribunal issued Decision 2013 HRTO 885 (the “Decision”), which dismissed the Applications.
2On June 12, 2013, the applicant made written submissions seeking that his name in the style of cause be anonymized. The applicant submits that he has an uncommon name and that though the Decision does not identify the nature of his disability he could be stigmatized.
3The respondents have filed no submissions on the issue.
Decision
4The Tribunal has stated in C.M. v. York Region District School Board, 2009 HRTO 735 at paragraph 20:
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.
5I have considered the matter and, even assuming without finding that this Request properly falls within the scope of the Tribunal’s criteria for reconsideration, I find that there is no reason to grant the applicant’s request for anonymity. The Decision does not even refer to the nature of applicant’s disabilities and there are no exceptional circumstances which would cause the Tribunal to depart from its usual practice to publicize the names of the parties.
6The applicant’s Request to anonymize the style of cause is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 14th day of August, 2013.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané Vice-chair