Kahraman v. Del Grande, 2013 HRTO 1636

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Daniel Kahraman Applicant

-and-

Linda Del Grande Respondent

-and-

The Municipality of Clarington Public Library Board Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton Date: September 30, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1636 Indexed as: Kahraman v. Del Grande

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Daniel Kahraman, Applicant No submissions

Linda Del Grande, Respondent Angela Rae, Counsel

The Municipality of Clarington Public Library Board, Intervenor Angela Rae, Counsel

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services and facilities because of sexual orientation. The applicant alleges that he was unable to access various internet websites at the Courtice public library due to censorship. He also alleges that he wrote to the respondent, who appears to be the manager of support services, concerning his issues, but did not receive a response back from her.

2The respondent filed a Response. In her Response, the respondent identified The Municipality of Clarington Public Library Board (“the library”) as an affected person.

3The library filed a Request to Intervene (“the Request”) and submits that it seeks to intervene because it is the employer of the respondent, who was acting within the scope of her employment, and because the Application is essentially about the library’s internet policies and the operation, extent, and administration of the library’s firewalls, software and servers.

4The applicant filed a Response to Request for an Order (“RFOP”) opposing the library as an intervenor. The applicant submits, amongst other points, that the library is in a conflict of interest with the respondent as they have the same counsel, and that the library did not respond quickly enough to the censorship issues about which he informed it prior to filing his Application. The respondent did not file a Response to the RFOP, and the time for doing so has elapsed.

5The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated August 21, 2013, in which it stated that it was not, at that point, making a determination about whether or not the library should be added as an intervenor. Instead, it sought the parties’ submissions on whether or not the library should be added as a respondent, pursuant to Rule 1.7(b) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, particularly given that it is the respondent’s employer and because the issues raised in the Application relate to the applicant’s ability, or perhaps more accurately his inability, to access different internet sites at the library.

6In the CAD, the Tribunal directed the parties, and the library, to file submissions with the Tribunal, copying the other party and the library, on whether or not the library should be added as a respondent. The Tribunal stated that upon receipt of these submissions, the Tribunal would review them, along with the Request, and may issue further directions.

7The respondent and library filed joint submissions in response to the CAD. The library submitted that it was not seeking status as a respondent, but rather as an intervenor and if the library’s request is not granted, it would withdraw from the proceedings. It further noted that even if the Request was granted, it may withdraw from the proceedings if it is deemed appropriate. It reserves its right to make submissions if the applicant seeks to add it as a respondent.

8The respondent does not oppose the Request. She does not seek to make the library as a respondent, but reserves her right to make such application in the future if she deems it advisable to do so or if the applicant seeks to add it as a respondent.

9The applicant has not filed any submissions and the time for doing so has elapsed.

10I find it appropriate, in these circumstances, to add the library as an intervenor. The essence of the Application, as identified by the applicant in his Response to the RFOP, is about the “whole-scale indiscriminate blockage of all Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered (“LGBT”) news web sites”. Accordingly, the Application pertains to the library’s internet policies and its computer systems, as the library highlighted in its Request. Further, one of the remedies that the applicant seeks, the firing of the respondent, can only be accomplished through the actions of the library if the Tribunal were to make such an order.

11Accordingly, in these circumstances, the library is added as an intervenor and the style of cause is amended accordingly.

12I am not seized with this matter.