K.M. v. Ontario (Government and Consumer Services), 2015 HRTO 434

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

K.M.

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Minister of Government and Consumer Services

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: April 1, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 434

Indexed as: K.M. v. Ontario (Government and Consumer Services)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

K.M., Applicant

Grace Vaccarelli, Counsel

Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Minister of Government and Consumer Services, Respondent

Bruce Ellis, Counsel

1This is an Application filed on October 21, 2014 under s. 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 gender identity and gender expression.

2The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings, along with his Application, seeking an order to anonymize the applicant by referring to him using his initials. The applicant identifies him as a transsexual male and submitted that he brings the Application to ensure his government issued identification reflects his gender identity and not refer to his sex assigned at birth. The applicant submitted that identifying him in the Application would undermine the purpose of the Application by exposing his sex assigned or “out” him.

3In its response, the respondent took no position regarding the request to be referred to only by his initials, but reserved the right to make submissions if the request for anonymity extends beyond that.

4Rule 3.11 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states:

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

5The request to keep the name of a party or other information confidential is 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. The Tribunal therefore must be satisfied that the applicant’s request to anonymize his identity outweighs the Tribunal’s interest in its processes being open and transparent.

6In previous cases the Tribunal has recognized that cases involving transsexual applicants may raise particular privacy interests. See XY v. Ontario (Government and Consumer Services), 2010 HRTO 1906 and K.M. v. Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, 2012 HRTO 1505. In this case, the applicant’s privacy interest is clear, since the issue in dispute is whether he should be identified by his sex assigned at birth on government issued identification. Referring to him by name in decisions, which are publicly available, concerning this Application would necessarily reveal his sex assigned at birth and identify him as a transsexual. The respondent does not oppose the request to anonymize by referring to the applicant by his initials. In these circumstances, I find it appropriate to grant the request for anonymization. The applicant shall be referred to by his initials “K.M.” in these proceedings.

7I am not seized.