B.Q. v. Family Chiropractic Centre, 2017 HRTO 1710

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

B.Q.

Applicant

-and-

Family Chiropractic Centre, Dr. Scott Huehn, 1900119 Ontario Inc. o/a The Augusta House and 1892499 Ontario o/a The Pheasant Plucker

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: December 28, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 1710

Indexed as: B.Q. v. Family Chiropractic Centre

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

B.Q., Applicant

Adam Savaglio, Counsel

Family Chiropractic Centre and Dr. Scott Huehn, Respondents

Wade Poziomka, Counsel

1900119 Ontario Inc. o/a The Augusta House and 1892499 Ontario o/a The Pheasant Plucker, Respondents

Jasmina Mrkalj-Skelly, Counsel

1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request that the Tribunal anonymize the Application and her request to increase the monetary remedy sought in the Application.

2The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination because of sex and sexual advances contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). Among other things, the applicant alleged that she was subject to sexual harassment and sexual assault.

anonymization request

3The applicant requested that the Tribunal anonymize this Application due to the “sexualized circumstances” alleged in her Application.

4All respondents indicated that they took no position with respect to this 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 being open and transparent.

6Allegations of sexual harassment or sexual assault often raise issues of a personal or sensitive nature. However, I agree with the Tribunal in its decision in Bartlett v. Hydro One Networks, 2012 HRTO 212, that not every Tribunal decision involving such allegations should be anonymized. The mere fact, then, that this Application alleges sexual harassment/assault does not automatically trigger anonymization.

7However, I am satisfied in this case that the applicant’s raises the kind of exceptional situation in which it is appropriate to grant the request for anonymization. I find it significant that the applicant is basing her request not only on an allegation of sexual harassment but on the basis that she has been subject to a sexual assault arising out of the facts that form the basis of her Application. I note also that none of the respondents opposed her request for anonymization.

8The applicant’s request is allowed. The Tribunal will refer to the applicant by her initials in order to protect her identity.

request to amend remedy

9On November 28, 2017, the applicant requested permission to amend the remedy sought in her Application. The applicant’s request will be addressed by the assigned adjudicator when this matter proceeds to a hearing on the merits of the Application.

orders

10For 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.

11The applicant’s request to amend the remedy she is seeking will be dealt with by the adjudicator assigned to conduct a merits hearing.