Newman v. Sault Major Hockey Association, 2009 HRTO 1981

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Christopher Newman Applicant

-and-

Sault Major Hockey Association, Corporation of the City of Sault Ste. Marie and Peter Florio Respondents

AND BETWEEN:

Christopher Newman Applicant

-and-

Ontario Hockey Association, City of Toronto, O.H.A. Junior Hockey Club (1992) Limited o/A North York Rangers and Zach Smith Respondents

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: November 20, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 1981 Indexed as: Newman v. Sault Major Hockey Association

1These two Applications were filed on August 10, 2009 under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the "Code"), alleging discrimination in the provision of goods, services and facilities.

2These Applications are two of 10 filed by the applicant, including four Applications pursuant to section 53(5), raising similar facts and issues. In 2009 HRTO 1288 the Tribunal deferred Applications 2008-00440-I, 2008-00622-I, 2008-00840-I and 2008-01237-I pending the resolution of a number of preliminary issues raised in the four Transitional Applications. These Applications appear to raise very similar issues and the Tribunal gave Notice of its intention to defer these Applications as well in 2009 HRTO 1709 pending the resolution of the broader preliminary issues raised in the Transitional Applications. The applicant opposes the request to defer these two Applications.

3The applicant has indicated that he intends to commence an application for judicial review of Tribunal Interim Decision 2009 HRTO 1228 and that accordingly these two Applications should not be put off indefinitely while the other Applications await a decision on the judicial review.

4The applicant's submission assumes that the other Applications and the processing of the respondents preliminary issues will be stayed upon the commencing of an application for judicial review of 2009 HRTO 1228. I note at this stage that no application for judicial review has been commenced and in any event a stay of these Applications is not automatic. Until such time as a party requests a stay of these proceedings and one is granted, the Applications will continue to be processed in accordance with the various Interim Decisions cited above. The parties are directed to Washington v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 640 and King v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 786, for discussion of the factors the Tribunal may consider when considering a request to stay an Application before it.

5Given the similarity in the facts and legal issues raised by these Applications I find that it is just, fair and expeditious that they be deferred including the question of whether or not Mr. Smith is an appropriate respondent, pending the resolution of the preliminary issues raised in the four Transitional Applications.

6I am not seized of these Applications.