HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Shelley Leach
Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the
Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel
Indexed as: Leach v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Shelley Leach, Applicant
Self-represented
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Respondent
Adrien Iafrate, Counsel
1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request to add a respondent and a ground of discrimination to the Application. It also addresses her request that the Tribunal anonymize the Application and her request for accommodation.
2The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination because of disability and receipt of public assistance contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). She also alleged reprisal within the meaning of the Code. Specifically, the applicant alleged that the Ontario Provincial Police (“OPP”) used information relating to her disability to intimidate and harass her. She also alleged that her landlord convinced the OPP to illegally force her from her home and that the OPP failed to investigate crimes allegedly committed by her landlord.
Request to add respondent and add ground to application
3By Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) filed on August 9, 2017, the applicant requested that the Tribunal add “Renfrew County Ontario Works as represented by the Ministry of Community and Social Services” as a respondent to the Application. She claimed that, while awaiting Ontario Works benefits, she was illegally forced from her home. She also alleged that she was denied basic needs and shelter allowance and she was told that the Pembroke Ontario Works office may have disclosed confidential information about her. The applicant also requested to add the ground of sex to the Application.
4The respondent opposed the applicant’s request to add a respondent on the basis that she has filed a separate Application against both the respondent and County of Renfrew Ontario Works in which she raised in essence the allegations contained in her RFOP.
Decision
5When determining a request to add a respondent, the Tribunal considers the following three questions:
a. Are there allegations made that could support a finding that the proposed respondent violated the Code?
b. If the proposed respondent is an individual and an organization is also named, is there a compelling reason to include him or her as a respondent?
c. Would it be fair, in all the circumstances, to add the proposed respondent?
See Smyth v. Toronto Police Services, 2009 HRTO 1513.
6Applying these factors, I do not find it appropriate to add Renfrew County Ontario Works as a respondent to this Application. The applicant has already begun a separate Application against County of Renfrew Works and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario (File no. 2016-26107-I) in which she raised the allegations contained in her August 9, 2017 RFOP. If she wishes to make these allegations, she must pursue them in that proceeding.
7I grant the applicant’s request to add sex as a ground of alleged discrimination in this case. However, I note that there is no reference in her Application to her sex being a factor in her treatment by the OPP.
8Finally, I note that the applicant wrote to the Tribunal to express concern that the counsel for the respondent in this Application had access to her application in File no. 2016-26107-I. I see nothing improper in the respondent’s counsel having access to her Application in File no. 2016-26107-I as the respondent is also a respondent in that other proceeding. Even though the respondent is represented by different counsel in the two Applications, it is the same respondent that the applicant has named in the two Applications.
anonymization request
9On September 14, 2017, the applicant requested that the Tribunal anonymize this Application. She said she did not want any ongoing criminal proceeding compromised; she feared retribution from people she has reported to the authorities; she is vulnerable and easily exploited; and all of her proceedings increase her stress level.
10The respondent did not respond to the applicant’s anonymization request and the time for doing so has passed.
findings
11The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Anonymization 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 must balance the public interest in freedom of expression and open justice against any significant consequences of identifying the person requesting anonymization.
12Human rights applications often include personal information and sensitive medical 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 outweighs the public interest in a transparent human rights process.
13The Tribunal has granted requests for anonymization where highly sensitive medical information will be disclosed during the proceeding and/or where the Tribunal is persuaded that a party may suffer significant stigma as a result of the proceeding. See, for example, J.M. v. St. Joseph’s Health Care, 2009 HRTO 1811 and A.B. v. Western University, 2015 HRTO 428. On the other hand, the Tribunal has declined to grant anonymization requests if it is not persuaded that there is a real and substantial risk to the applicant’s privacy interests in the case. For example, the Tribunal has declined to grant anonymization requests if it is not convinced that a determination of the issues raised in the case will require the disclosure of the sensitive medical information.
14I am not persuaded that it is appropriate to grant the applicant’s request to anonymize this case. The reasons provided by the applicant are common concerns for applicants in Tribunal proceedings. Many applicants fear retaliation from the respondents they have named in their applications. The Code provides protections against such reprisals for claiming one’s rights under s. 8 of the Code. In terms of the applicant’s concerns about the disclosure of sensitive medical information, I am not persuaded that the hearing of this case will necessarily require the disclosure of sensitive medical information to the extent that anonymization is necessary. I wish to assure the applicant that the Tribunal has a practice of not disclosing more personal medical information in its decisions than is necessary for the purposes of the decision.
Accommodation request
15By RFOP filed August 29, 2017, the applicant made a request for accommodation in which she stated that it takes her a long time to read materials, that she is affected by stress and that she requires a mobility support harness on her service dog. It is unclear what specific accommodations the applicant is requesting from the Tribunal at this point in the proceeding. If the applicant requires specific accommodations as this matter proceeds, she must file another RFOP identifying the specific accommodations she is requesting.
order
16For the above reasons, the Tribunal orders as follows:
a. The applicant’s request to add Renfrew County Ontario Words as a respondent is denied;
b. The applicant’s request to add the ground of sex is granted; and,
c. The applicant’s request to anonymize the Application is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 27th day of October, 2017.
“Signed by”
Jo-Anne Pickel
Vice-chair