N.M. v. St. Joseph’s Health Centre Toronto, 2017 HRTO 1707

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

N.M.

Applicant

-and-

St. Joseph’s Health Centre Toronto

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

N.M.

Applicant

-and-

St. Michael’s Hospital

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: December 27, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 1707

Indexed as: N.M. v. St. Joseph’s Health Centre Toronto

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

N.M., Applicant

Nicole Simes, Counsel

St. Joseph’s Health Centre Toronto, Respondent

Stephanie Young, Counsel

St. Michael’s Hospital, Respondent

Naomi Calla, Counsel

1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request that the Tribunal anonymize the Application and his request that the Tribunal expedite this proceeding.

2The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination because of gender identity and gender expression contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). In particular, the applicant alleges that the respondents refused to address him by his proper name and his proper gender.

anonymization request

3The applicant requested that the Tribunal anonymize this Application because he publicly identifies as a man and the use of his name in this proceeding would “out” him as transgender.

4Both respondents consented to the applicant’s request.

5The Tribunal’s practice has been to consider any request to keep the name of a party or other information confidential as 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. Therefore, I need to be satisfied that the applicant’s request to anonymize her identity outweighs the Tribunal’s interest in its processes

6I am satisfied in this case that the applicant raises the kind of exceptional situation in which it is appropriate to grant his request for anonymization. The applicant stated that he has faced social isolation in the past when he was outed as transgender. He fears the same would happen again. Further, the Tribunal has recognized the serious risks that unfortunately can result from publicly outing someone as transgender. See A.B. v. Hamilton (City), 2015 HRTO 745, and XY v. Ontario (Government and Consumer Services), 2010 HRTO 1906. As a final point, I note that both respondents consented to the applicant’s request.

request to expedite

7The applicant requested that the Tribunal expedite this proceedings due to his deteriorating health. He has Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (“ALS”) and he has also developed a high resistance to antibiotics which he must take due to recurrent infections. He says the growing intensity of the pain and symptoms associated with his infections will impact his ability to be physically present and participate in activities outside of his home.

8The respondents consent to expediting this proceeding.

Finding

9Rule 21.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provides that an applicant may request that the Tribunal deal with an application on an expedited basis in circumstances that require an urgent resolution of the issues in dispute.

10The Tribunal has held that, for a request to expedite to be granted, the applicant must demonstrate that the circumstances are truly urgent, requiring the resolution of the human rights dispute in a particularly rapid manner as compared with the time required to complete the Tribunal’s regular process. See Weerawardane v. 2152458 Ontario Ltd., 2008 HRTO 53.

11Due to the applicant’s deteriorating health and the agreement of the respondents, I find it appropriate to grant the applicant’s request to expedite this proceeding.

Timetable

12Both parties have agreed to attempt mediation in this case.

13The applicant proposed as a time table: (1) that the Tribunal schedule a mediation within 30 days of receipt of a Reply or notification that the applicant is not filing a Reply; and (2) if mediation is unsuccessful that the tribunal schedule a hearing within 12 weeks of the mediation.

14The respondents proposed that the Tribunal schedule a joint mediation of both of these Applications since both respondents have been integrated under one corporate entity since August of this year. They also proposed that the Tribunal schedule the mediation by January 30, 2018, or within 30 days of the applicant’s Reply or confirmation that he is not filing a Reply, whichever date is later. The respondents agree with the applicant’s proposal that the Tribunal schedule a hearing within 12 weeks of the mediation if it is unsuccessful.

15Given the intervening holiday season, the Tribunal will schedule a mediation by February 2, 2018. If the mediation is unsuccessful, the Tribunal will endeavour to schedule a hearing within 12 weeks of the mediation.

orders

16For the above reasons, the applicant’s request to anonymize the Application is granted. The style of cause for this proceeding will be amended to refer to the applicant’s initials.

17The applicant’s request to expedite this proceeding is also granted on the terms set out in para. 15.