Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
5Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO: John Doe and A&W Canada

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO: John Doe and A&W Canada

Ratings: (0)|Views: 35,331|Likes:
Published by aileenmdonnelly
Doe v. A & W Canada, 2013 HRTO 1259
Doe v. A & W Canada, 2013 HRTO 1259

More info:

Published by: aileenmdonnelly on Jul 26, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/28/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 
HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
 ______________________________________________________________________ 
B E T W E E N:John DoeApplicant-and-
A & W Canada
Respondent
  ______________________________________________________________________ 
DECISION
 
 ______________________________________________________________________ 
Adjudicator:
David A. Wright
 Date:
July 19, 2013
File Number:
2013-14611-I
 Citation:
2013 HRTO 1259
Indexed as: Doe v. A & W Canada
 ______________________________________________________________________ 
   2   0   1   3   H   R   T   O    1   2   5   9   (   C  a  n   L   I   I   )
 
 
2
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
 )John Doe, Applicant ))Self-represented)
   2   0   1   3   H   R   T   O    1   2   5   9   (   C  a  n   L   I   I   )
 
 
3[1] The applicant is a resident of Cornwall who has not identified himself. Theapplicant filed an Application using the name of a cartoon character, containingallegations he acknowledges are
“ridiculous”
that appear intended to lampoon viewswith which he disagrees. When the fictional name was raised by the Tribunal andidentification was required, the applicant sought leave to bring the Application under a
“pseudonym”
. The Request is denied, and the Application is dismissed, for the reasonsthat follow.
THE APPLICATION
[2] The Application was filed on June 2, 2013, by e-
mail under the name “GloriaDawn Ironbox”. It was
sent from an e-mail account identified with that name. Gloria
Ironbox is the name of a parody “feminist” cartoon character in an episode of 
an American TV series
. The Application describes the applicant’s identity as “womyn,
expressing myself as a whole, empowered person free of the shekels [
sic 
] of gender”,“lesbianism and radical feminism; complete separation from forced association withmen”; and
 
“living in a lesbian commune”.
 [3] The Application alleges discrimination with respect to goods, services andfacilities because of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, familystatus and marital status contrary to s. 1 of the
Human Rights Code
, R.S.O, 1990, c.
H.19, as amended (the “
Code
”). The
narrative describes the allegations and their effectas follows:On May 31, 2013, I attended the Cornwall Square Mall and ordered ahamburger meal from the A&W in the foodcourt. It was my first timeordering from a fast food establishment of that sort. I noticed that thehamburger meals were given names of various family members (e.g.
“Mama Burger”, “Teen Burger”, “Grampa Burger”, etc.) The sizes of the
hamburgers increased with maleness and seniority in the heteronormative
family (i.e. Papa Burger bigger than Mama or Teen burger… etc.). Iwanted a light burger so I ordered the “Mama Burger” meal.
  As a lesbian feminist, the whole notion of labelling a burger patron as a
“Mama” or “Papa” or “Teen” b
ased solely on the choice of meal is highlydegrading and an attack on my womyn identity. The level of humiliation
   2   0   1   3   H   R   T   O    1   2   5   9   (   C  a  n   L   I   I   )

Activity (5)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
Cathy Brennan liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->