G.L. v. Delta Bingo Inc., 2017 HRTO 1234

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

G.L.

Applicant

-and-

Delta Bingo Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: September 20, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 1234

Indexed as: G.L. v. Delta Bingo Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

G.L., Applicant

Self-represented

Delta Bingo Inc., Respondent

Sabatina Vassalli, Counsel

Ontario Charitable Gaming Association, Respondent

Michael Lipton, Counsel

Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation, Respondent

Tom Moutsatsos, Counsel

1The applicant filed an Application on March 6, 2017, alleging that he experienced discrimination contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (“the Code”). In particular, the applicant alleged that Delta Bingo Inc. (DELTA) failed to follow legal requirements and guidelines established by the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (OLG) and that this affected him as a person with a gambling addiction.

2Delta filed a Response to the Application in which it denied that it had discriminated against the applicant or failed to follow applicable legal requirements or guidelines established by the OLG.

3The Application also named the Ontario Charitable Gaming Association (OCGA) as a respondent. The OCGA filed a Response, in which it added the OLG as a respondent. Delta recently filed a Request for Order During Proceedings that also requests that OLG be added as a respondent.

4The OLG does not agree that it should be a respondent to this Application. The applicant agrees that OLG should not be a respondent.

5On August 18, 2017, the applicant filed a Request to amend the Application and to remove OCGA as a party to the Application. OCGA agrees that it should be removed. The applicant also advised that he was narrowing the scope of the Application to remove allegations of harassment and to remove a request for public interest remedies and to clarify the monetary remedies he is seeking.

6The applicant has also requested that public documents related to the Application be anonymized.

OCGA

7The applicant’s request to remove OCGA as a respondent is not opposed by the other respondents or potential respondents and is supported by OCGA. The request to remove OCGA as a respondent is granted.

OLG

8The Tribunal’s processes have created some confusion about whether OLG is already a respondent, and therefore now seeks to be removed, or whether it is a potential respondent which does not agree that it should be added. In my view, these distinctions are not important. The essential question is whether OLG is a proper respondent to the Application. In my view, it is not, particularly in light of the applicant’s recent clarification of the nature and scope of the Application and the remedies he seeks.

9It appears that the reason the respondents wished to add OLG was to help prove their assertion that they followed the legal requirements and OLG guidelines. I understand that it may be necessary and appropriate to hear evidence from OLG about those requirements and guidelines, this can be accomplished by having someone from OLG present as a witness and it is not necessary to have OLG present as a respondent.

Request for Anonymization

10The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on the Anonymization of Decisions provides that, apart from cases involving minors, anonymization will be considered only in exceptional circumstances. I find that a determination of whether the applicant’s request meets this test requires further information and possibly evidence.

11The applicant’s request for anonymization is granted with respect to this Interim Decision and may be reviewed as necessary with respect to future decisions.

Next Steps

12The applicant and Delta have both indicated a willingness to participate in mediation at the Tribunal. The Registrar will accordingly schedule a mediation session. In my view, a full-day mediation session may be appropriate in this case rather than a half-day session.