Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Christopher Newman Applicant
-and-
Greater Toronto Hockey League Respondent
A N D B E T W E E N:
Christopher Newman Applicant
-and-
Toronto Junior Canadiens Hockey Club Respondent
A N D B E T W E E N:
Christopher Newman Applicant
-and-
Ontario Hockey Federation Respondent
A N D B E T W E E N:
Christopher Newman Applicant
-and-
Ontario Hockey Federation, Joe Drago, Phillip McKee and Brandy Tannenbaum Respondents
interim decision
Adjudicator: David Muir
Indexed as: Newman v. Greater Toronto Hockey League
1These are four Applications filed on March 27, 2009, June 3, 2009 and June 15, 2009, respectively under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). The applicant has filed a Request for Order during Proceedings (the "Request") seeking the amendment of these Applications. He also by correspondence dated December 4, 2009 sought direction respecting the filing of materials.
Request to Amend
2This Request filed by the applicant on November 5, 2009, seeks an Order to amend these Applications as follows:
a. Include a claim of constructive discrimination under section 11 of the Code in respect of the duty to investigate the complaint of discrimination in each Application;
b. Include a claim of discrimination because of association under section 12 in respect of the duty to investigate a complaint of discrimination in each Application;
c. Include discrimination because of association under Section 12 for differential treatment (terms and conditions) to the which the applicant alleges he was subject to in Applications TR-0380-09 and TR-0480-09
3The human rights complaints underlying the Applications are summarised briefly here:
a. TR-0190-09 and TR-0191-09: In these Applications the applicant alleges that the respondents discriminated against him in the provision of goods and services and contract when on October 8, 2006 the applicant experienced a poisoned environment when during or just after the course of a melee on the ice the applicant heard one unidentified hockey player loudly call an opposing player a "fucking faggot".
b. TR-0380-09: In this Application the applicant alleges that the respondent discriminated against him in respect of services from the time he brought the incident described in TR-0190-09 and TR-0191-09 to the attention of the respondent to October 24, 2006, when the respondent stated that it had no jurisdiction to deal with discrimination in respect of services and facilities within their own organization or within the Greater Toronto Hockey League.
c. TR-0480-09: In this Application the applicant alleges that on February 1, 2006, respondent Brandy Tannenbaum, in the presence of respondent Phillip McKee, threatened a reprisal against the applicant. The applicant alleges that other threats of reprisal were made on January 11, 2006 and September 28, 2006.
4The applicant states that the amendments are necessary to address the merits of the issue of the duty to investigate a complaint of discrimination by a private organization and to ensure a full hearing of these issues. The respondents oppose the Request.
5Rule 12 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure for Transitional Applications provides as follows:
12.1 To file a section 53(5) Application an Applicant must complete the Application (Form TR-1), deliver it to the Respondent(s) and file it with the Tribunal. A complete Application must provide the information requested in every section of the Application form and must include all required attachments.
12.2 The completed section 53(5) Application (Form TR-1) must be filed between January 1 and June 30, 2009 and must include:
a) the complaint or the amended complaint filed at the Commission; and,
b) the Commission complaint file number.
12.3 Section 53(5) Applications made in accordance with these Rules must be based on the subject matter of the complaint or amended complaint filed at the Commission.
12.4 Where an Applicant wishes to add parties, combine two or more complaints to be dealt with together as a single application, or, having regard to Rule 12.3, amend the complaint, the Applicant may identify any such requests in their Application. (emphasis added)
6Although the Rules respecting section 53(3) and 53(5) applications are not identical in that preliminary requests to add parties or amend the subject matter of the complaint would not normally be entertained in a section 53(3) application, it remains that Rule 12 contemplates that a section 53(5) application will be based on the subject matter of the complaint as it was when transferred from the Commission.
7Generally speaking a section 53(5) application will be limited to the subject matter of the complaint made to the Commission and the Tribunal will only exercise its discretion to allow amendments where it is necessary to ensure to the fair, just and expeditious disposition of the application. It is clear that the amendments sought here, while possibly related to the subject matter of the complaint, are entirely new allegations. I am not satisfied that it is necessary to the fair, just and expeditious resolution of these applications to amend them by the addition of new allegations at this stage.
8The Request to amend these Applications is denied.
Case Assessment Direction
9The applicant states that he has been directed to file a Reply on or before December 14, 2009, in respect of one of the Part IV Applications and is also required to file responding material in these Applications. The Tribunal in decision 2009 HRTO 2155 has extended the deadline for the filing of the applicant's reply in 2009-01939-I to February 12, 2010.
10Previously two extensions of time have been granted to the parties for the filing of materials with respect to the preliminary issues raised by the respondents in the instant Applications, the last at the request of the applicant seeking an extension of time to file his responding materials to December 18, 2009. The applicant disclosed no specific reason for his inability to file these materials by the deadline previously established.
11The respondents oppose the applicant's request to extent the time for filing beyond December 18, 2009.
12The hearing of the preliminary issues is scheduled to take place on January 28, 2010.
13In the circumstances the applicant's request for a further extension of time is denied.
14I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 11th day of December, 2009.
"Signed by"
David Muir
Vice-chair