WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

C.V., Applicant

Amir Attaran, Counsel

Mount Sinai Hospital (aka Sinai Health System), Respondent

Katherine Pollock, Counsel

1The applicant filed an Application alleging that the respondent discriminated against her because of family status and sex contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). Specifically, the applicant alleges that the respondent discriminated against her by refusing to provide her with a certain medical service.

2The applicant requested that the Tribunal use initials rather than her full name throughout the course of the Tribunal’s proceedings. She has asked that the Tribunal to use the initials “C.V.” in order to ensure that her real name cannot be determined. In support of her request, the applicant submitted that the proceedings should be anonymized because of the highly sensitive and personal nature of the medical service she sought from the respondent.

3The respondent consented to the applicant’s request and filed its own anonymization request. The respondent submitted that the respondent’s name also should be anonymized due to the highly private and sensitive nature of the service sought by the applicant. The respondent argued that privacy for clinicians is vital to protecting their security.

4The applicant opposed the respondent’s anonymization request on the basis that there already exists certain publicly accessible information which states that the respondent provides the medical services at issue in this Application.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

5Under Rule 3.11 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may make an order to protect the confidentiality of personal or sensitive information where it considers it appropriate to do so. The Tribunal has invoked Rule 3.11 as the basis upon which to anonymize parties in proceedings before it.

6The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Anonymization of HRTO Decisions provides that the Tribunal may anonymize the name of a party to protect the confidentiality of personal or sensitive information where it is appropriate to do so. However, such an order is only made in exceptional circumstances. When determining whether to make an anonymization order, the Tribunal’s general approach is to balance the public interest in freedom of expression and open justice against any significant consequences of identifying the person requesting anonymization.

7The Tribunal does not grant anonymization in all cases where someone alleges that they have a private and sensitive medical condition or where they are seeking medical services they claim to be private and sensitive. However, the Tribunal has granted requests for anonymization where it is persuaded that the proceeding deals with medical information or medical services that are particularly private and sensitive due to the social stigma attached to them.

8Due to potential stigma relating to the medical service sought by the applicant, and also the respondent’s consent, I find that is is appropriate to use initials instead of the applicant’s name in this proceeding.

9However, I do not find it appropriate to anonymize the respondent’s name since there already exists publicly accessible information stating that the respondent provides the medical services at issue in this Application. It appears that the respondent even lists such services on its website, which is accessible to the public. I also note that no clinicians were named as personal respondents to the Application. As such, I do not find it necessary to anonymize the respondent’s name to protect any individual clinicians associated with the respondent hospital.

10While I do not find it appropriate to anonymize the respondent’s name, I have not provided any detail as to the medical services at issue in this Application in this Interim Decision. I have drafted the Interim Decision in this way because this Application remains at an early stage of proceedings and therefore it is possible that the Application will not proceed to a full hearing on the merits.

ORDER

11The Tribunal makes the following orders:

a. The applicant shall be referred to by the initials “C.V.” in these proceedings and the style of cause will be amended accordingly.

b. The respondent’s request to anonymize its name is denied for the reasons set out above.

12Since both parties have agreed to mediation, the Registrar shall schedule a mediation in this case.

13I am not seized of this matter.

Dated at Toronto, this 7^th day of July, 2015.

“Signed by”

Jo-Anne Pickel

Vice-chair

CORRECTION

The decision released on July 7, 2015 has been corrected to make further anonymization at para. 2.

Dated at Toronto, this 30^th day of July, 2015.