Christopher Newman v. City of Toronto, Greater Toronto Hockey League and Toronto East Enders Hockey Club, 2009 HRTO 2155

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Christopher Newman

Applicant

-and-

City of Toronto, Greater Toronto Hockey League and Toronto East Enders Hockey Club

Respondents

interim Decision

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: December 11, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 2155

Indexed as: Newman v. Toronto (City)

1This Application was filed on April 19, 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. The applicant has requested an extension of time to February 12, 2010, to complete his reply. This decision deals with the applicant’s request as well as his objection to this Application being deferred together with a number of others filed as described below.

2This Application is one of eleven filed by the applicant, including four Applications pursuant to section 53(5), raising similar facts and issues. The applicant, who identifies as a gay man, claims that the respondents have violated his rights under the Code and alleges that as a member of the public attending minor hockey games he has heard homophobic and other discriminatory slurs. Other claims that the respondents failed to properly investigate and that the respondents’ anti-harassment, anti-discrimination policies and complaints policies are inadequate are raised in various of these Applications.

3In 2009 HRTO 1288, the Tribunal deferred Applications 2008-00440-I; 2008-00622-I; 2008-00840-I; and 2009-01237-I pending the resolution of a number of preliminary issues raised in the four section 53(5) Applications. Two further Applications raising similar facts and issues, 2009-03163-I and 2009-03166-I, were deferred in 2009 HRTO 1981.

4This Application raises facts and issues similar if not identical to those raised in the other Applications filed by the applicant. All of the Part IV Applications have been deferred and I find that it would be fair, just and expeditious to defer this Application as well, pending the resolution of the preliminary issues raised by the respondents in the Transitional Applications.

5The applicant’s request for an extension of time to file his reply in this Application is granted.

6I am not seized.