Nadire Atas v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2017 HRTO 995

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Nadire Atas Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board, Chief of Police - Toronto Police Service, City of Toronto, Toronto Fire Services, The Wedgewood House, Porta Holdings Limited, Imperra General Management and Dee-Anna Wendel Respondents

Nadire Atas Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board, Chief of Police - Toronto Police Service, City of Toronto, Toronto Fire Services, Porta Holdings Limited, Imperra General Management, Security Locksmith and Design Ltd., Maria Oliveira, Dee-Anna Wendel, David Vittie, Thomas Heilborn, and Deirdre Williams Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: August 3, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 995 Indexed as: Atas v. Toronto Police Services Board

1These are two Applications, filed under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to goods and services because of disability, sex and reprisal.

2In a Case Assessment Direction issued on June 8, 2017 the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be held to determine whether all or part of these Applications should be dismissed because all or part of them have no reasonable prospect of success.

3This Interim Decision addresses several Requests for Order During Proceeding (“Requests”) filed by the parties.

THE REQUEST TO ANONYMISE

4On June 16, 2017 the applicant filed a Request seeking the following:

1. An order that the Applicant’s name be anonymized with initials;
2. An order that anonymization shall be applied to previous decisions in these matters;
3. An order for a Publication ban on the Applicant’s name in all the HRTO decisions in this matter;
4. An order that the respondents be prohibited from posting and otherwise disseminating information related to these proceedings;
5. An order that the respondents be prohibited from posting and otherwise disseminating information received in submissions in these proceedings;
6. An order requiring the respondents to remove all posted materials and information from the internet or other media about these proceedings forthwith and to refrain from making such postings in the future; and
7. That no person having knowledge of this order publish (including posting on the internet) or distribute any information identifying the applicant to this Application, as named in the Application, Responses or Reply.

5The Request is denied. The request for a publication ban and anonymization is denied. The applicant argues that her right to privacy outweighs the public interest in an open system of administrative justice. I do not agree. As the Tribunal has noted on a number of occasions it will only grant such orders in extraordinary circumstances. These are not extraordinary circumstances. See Hendy v. Nartech Metal Products Ltd., 2012 HRTO 810.

6As regards the request or an order directing the respondents to remove materials posted on the internet, the applicant alleges that persons associated with one of the respondent have posted negative comments about the applicant on the internet. The applicant has no evidence that the one personal respondent identified by her has had any role in these postings. As such there is no real basis for the request. I have no authority at all over individuals who are not parties to these proceedings and in the absence of any evidence that any party is directing this activity I can make no order.

7The parties are reminded about Rule 3.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules:

3.3 Parties and their representatives may not use documents obtained under these Rules for any purpose other than in the proceeding before the Tribunal.

THE JUNE 6, 2017 REQUEST

8On June 6, 2017 the applicant filed a Request seeking a number of minor amendments to the Application and consolidation of these two cases. To the extent not already addressed, these issues can be dealt with at the summary hearing.

THE AUGUST 2, 2017 REQUEST

9On August 2, the applicant filed a Request seeking an order requiring that two respondents amend an occurrence report they filed with the police. It is not clear what the applicant is referring to, nor is it clear what authority the Tribunal would have to direct the amendment of a document created by a party outside of these proceedings. The Request is denied.

ABUSE OF PROCESS

10On June 26, 2017 the respondents Porta Holdings, Imperra General Management and two personal respondents filed a Request that these Applications be dismissed as an abuse of process. These issues will be addressed at the summary hearing.

11I am not seized of these cases.