Lisa MacDonald v. Downtown Health Club for Women, Fulton Fitness and John Fulton, 2009 HRTO 1152

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Lisa MacDonald Applicant

-and-

Downtown Health Club for Women, Fulton Fitness and John Fulton Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim Date: July 28, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 1152 Indexed as: MacDonald v. Downtown Health Club for Women

1In a prior Interim Decision, 2009 HRTO 868, I set out a schedule for the parties to make written submissions on the respondents’ section 7 and 11(b) Charter arguments. I ruled that the Charter argument related to section 2(d) freedom of association would be dealt with at the hearing.

2The respondents have since withdrawn their section 7 and 11(b) arguments and made submissions on section 11(d) of the Charter, instead. The respondents have also made extensive written submissions on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear the Application raising the interpretation of the term “sex” in the Human Rights Code, RSO 1990, c.H.19, as amended (the “Code”), the interpretation of section 20(1) of the Code and the meaning of section 2(d) of the Charter. The respondents have also raised issues relating to abuse of process and delay.

3I have the discretion to determine and direct the order in which issues in a proceeding will be considered and determined (Rule 4.3(e)). In my view, many of the respondents’ arguments are best dealt with after I have heard the evidence, so that my determinations can be grounded in a clear factual context. Accordingly, except for the arguments concerning section 11(d) of the Charter, abuse of process and delay, I will not determine the issues raised in the respondents’ July 20, 2009 submissions prior to the hearing.

4For greater certainty, the applicant is required to respond to the following paragraphs of the respondents’ submissions: 1 to 10, 60 to 68, 70 to 75, and paragraphs 76 to 87 where relevant to my ruling in paragraph 3 above. Any submissions from the Attorney General need respond only to paragraphs 60 to 68 of the respondents’ submissions.

5The timelines set out in my earlier Interim Decision are varied as follows:

• Submissions from the applicant and the Attorney General are due 20 days from the date of this Interim Decision.
• Reply submissions from the respondents remain due 10 days after receipt of the submissions of the applicant and the Attorney-General.