Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Meadowbrook Golf and Country Club, 2005 HRTO 27

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Commission

-and-

Ann Teehan

Complainant

-and-

Meadowbrook Golf and Country Club, Chuck Hill, Eleanor O’Gorman

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Michael Gottheil

Date: August 10, 2005

Citation: 2005 HRTO 27

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario 400 University Avenue, 7^th^ Floor Toronto ON M7A 1T7 Phone (416) 314-0004 Fax (416) 314-8743 Toll free 1-800-668-3946 TTY (416) 314-2379 / 1-800-424-1168 E-mail hrto.registrar@jus.gov.on.ca Website www.hrto.ca

1This is a complaint brought under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19 as amended (“the Code”), alleging an infringement of Sections 1, 9 and 11. The Complaint was referred to the Tribunal on February 14, 2005.

2On August 8, 2005 the Tribunal held a pre-hearing conference by way of teleconference to deal with a number of preliminary and procedural matters. This decision sets out the Tribunal’s Orders, exclusive of reasons, for the matters determined at the pre-hearing conference.

Withdrawal of Complaint against Certain Respondents

3The Commission and complainant advised that they sought to withdraw the complaint as against the personal respondents Chuck Hill and Eleanor O’Goman. Counsel for the respondents consented.

4The Tribunal so orders and both the complaint and the title of proceeding herein shall be amended to remove Chuck Hill and Eleanor O’Gorman as respondents.

Manner of Proceeding

5The Commission has filed a Notice of Constitutional Question in which it seeks to challenge the constitutionality of Section 20(3) of the Code. In accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice 2004 (“the Rules”) it served this Notice on the other parties to these proceedings and on the Attorneys General of Canada and Ontario. Counsel for the Commission advised that he had received correspondence from the Attorney General of Canada that it did not intend to participate in these proceedings. Counsel for the Attorney General of Ontario participated in the pre-hearing conference, but indicated that she did not yet have instructions as to whether the Attorney General would seek to participate in the hearing of this matter.

6The respondent takes the position that the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to determine the constitutional question advanced by the Commission.

7Counsel for both the Commission and Attorney General of Ontario took the position that the constitutional question should not be addressed until after the hearing of the complaint on the merits. The complainant supported this position. The respondent took the position that the constitutional question (and the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to consider that question) ought to be determined as a preliminary matter. The Tribunal offered the parties the opportunity to make additional written submissions on this issue. All parties declined.

8The Tribunal ruled orally that the constitutional question would not be dealt with as a preliminary matter, but would be addressed, if necessary, after a hearing and determination on the merits of the complaint. The Tribunal will issue written reasons for this ruling as part of its final decision should any of the parties so request.

9Counsel for the Attorney General of Ontario indicated that she would advise the parties and the Tribunal as to whether and to what extent her client would seek to participate in the proceedings.

Hearing Dates

10The Tribunal canvassed hearing dates with the parties. On agreement of the parties, the following hearing dates are hereby set: December 8, 9, 13, 14, 15 and 16, 2005. The hearing will be held at the Tribunal’s offices, 400 University Avenue, 7^th^ Floor, Toronto (the starting time is 10:00 a.m.).

11The parties were advised that they should contact the Registrar should any additional preliminary or procedural issues arise which require determination prior to the commencement of the hearing.

12I am seized of this matter.