Adam Kusinski v. Marvin Basar Pharmacy Ltd., 2017 HRTO 1127

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Adam Kusinski Applicant

-and-

Marvin Basar Pharmacy Ltd. Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: August 30, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 1127 Indexed as: Kusinski v. Marvin Basar Pharmacy Ltd.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Adam Kusinski, Applicant Self-represented

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s request for anonymization.

2The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended. Specifically, he alleged discrimination by the respondent when he returned a product to the respondent’s store. The matter is scheduled to be heard on December 8, 2017.

3By Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”), the applicant requested the anonymization of his identity in this proceeding. The applicant submitted that anonymization was appropriate due to the sensitive nature of his case. The respondent did not respond to the RFOP and the time for doing so has passed.

Finding

4It is a well-established principle that there is a public interest in transparent legal processes and that, in accordance with Rule 3.10 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, human rights hearings are intended to be open proceedings. The Tribunal’s jurisprudence has held that anonymity or publication bans should be limited to exceptional circumstances: Marakkaparambil v. Ontario (Health and Long-Term Care), 2007 HRTO 24; Lazarevic v. York University, 2010 HRTO 1601.

5The Tribunal has issued anonymization orders in certain types of human rights cases, such as those involving minors, or highly personal or sensitive information, for example in sexual harassment complaints. The party seeking the anonymization order bears the onus of proving that there is a real and substantial risk to the hearing’s due process and/or harmful implications to confidentiality: see for example, Hogan v. Ontario (Health and Long Term Care), 2003 HRTO 6, and C.M. v. York Region District School Board, 2009 HRTO 735.

6Human rights applications often include personal information and sensitive evidence is often admitted at Tribunal hearings. Before it will grant a request to anonymize a proceeding, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the interest of safeguarding personal privacy in a particular case outweigh the public interest in a transparent human rights process.

7Taking the above into account, I decline to grant the applicant’s anonymization request in this case. I am sympathetic to the applicant’s concerns, but the nature of his allegations and the evidence likely to be presented in his case is not significantly different from a great many applications that come before this Tribunal. Therefore, I am not satisfied that the applicant has established any exceptional conditions of sensitivity or privacy necessitating anonymity.

applicant’s accommodation request

8The applicant has requested that the hearing of this matter be held by teleconference as an accommodation for him and his witness. The applicant does not appear to have copied the respondent on his request. Since the request affects the hearing process, the respondent must be given a chance to respond to the request. The Tribunal will forward a copy of the applicant’s accommodation request to the respondent for a response and address the request once it receives the respondent’s position in relation to it.

Order/Direction

9For the reasons set out above, the applicant’s request to anonymize this proceeding is denied.

10The Registrar will forward a copy of the applicant’s accommodation request to the respondent. The respondent must provide its position on the request within 7 days of receiving it. The Tribunal will address the accommodation request once it receives the respondent’s position, or the time for filing it has passed.

11I am not seized of this matter.