Demars v. Brampton Youth Hockey Association, 2009 HRTO 2233

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Suzanne Demars Applicant

-and-

Brampton Youth Hockey Association and Richard Doornink Respondents

AND B E T W E EN:

Robyn Demars Applicant

-and-

Ontario Hockey Federation Respondent

AND B E T W E EN:

Shaunna Demars Applicant

-and-

Ontario Hockey Federation Respondent

AND B E T W E EN:

Shaunna Demars Applicant

-and-

Brampton Youth Hockey Association Respondent

AND B E T W E EN:

Robyn Demars Applicant

-and-

Brampton Youth Hockey Association Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim Date: December 21, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 2233 Indexed as: Demars v. Brampton Youth Hockey Association

1These five Applications were filed in June 2009 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 Hearing in this matter is scheduled for January 21, 2010. This Interim Decision addresses various Requests for Order During Proceedings and sets out a protocol for the first day of hearing.

2The applicant Robyn Demars is a female minor. On December 22, 2004, she filed a compliant with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (through her litigation guardian and mother Suzanne Demars) against the Ontario Hockey Federation (TR-0440-09) and the Brampton Youth Hockey Association (“BYHA”) (TR-0443-09) alleging discrimination on the basis of sex in the provision of a service contrary to section 1 of the Code. The complaint relates to the fact that once the applicant turned 12 she was not permitted access to the change room with her male hockey team mates. Shaunna Demars, Robyn’s sister, filed similar complaints against the Ontario Hockey Federation (TR-0441-09) and the BYHA (TR-0442-09) on December 22, 2004.

3The applicant Suzanne Demars is the mother of Robyn and Shaunna Demars. She filed a complaint (now Application TR-0439-09) on January 5, 2005 against BYHA on the basis of family status and reprisal. She alleges that consequences have arisen after her children filed complaints against the BYHA.

4The parties have filed several Requests for Order during Proceedings. In light of the nature of the allegations and the disputed requests for production which relate primarily to remedial issues, I find that this is an appropriate case to bifurcate the issue of liability from the issue of remedy, if any.

Lack of Jurisdiction

5In my view, it is not plain and obvious that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over this Application in light of a prior settlement approved by the Ontario Human Rights Commission in respect of a dressing room policy involving the Hockey Canada, the Ottawa District Minor Hockey Association, the Ottawa District Hockey Association and the West End Hockey League. That issue will be dealt with by the Member at the hearing, in his or her discretion.

6The Application will not be dismissed for delay or want of prosecution. Under the previous Code, the Commission had carriage of complaints and any delays caused by the Commission should not be visited upon the applicants.

Request to Strike Remedial Relief

7The respondents assert that the original complaints did not request any remedial relief, and therefore the applicants should be precluded from seeking any financial relief. The Tribunal Rules of Procedure for Transitional Applications contemplate that the applicant will be permitted to submit a revised request for remedies at the Tribunal stage: Rule 18. The request to strike the remedial relief sought is denied.

Expansion of the Subject Matter of the Original Complaints

8The transitional provisions of the Code provide that the subject matter of the Application must relate to the original complaint. Accordingly, any pre-complaint and post-complaint allegations filed by the applicant and any documents or evidence related to pre- or post-complaint allegations will not be permitted. The subject matter of the original complaints and thus of the present Applications by Robyn and Shaunna Demars relate to the dressing room policy of the BYHA and the Ontario Hockey Federation.

Request for Examinations and Further Disclosure

9I see no basis to request the applicants to submit to an examination prior to the hearing. Their evidence will be heard on January 21, 2010.

Request for a medical examination and further disclosure relating to alleged mental anguish

10As I have bifurcated the hearing, these requests are premature. They may be revisited at the appropriate time.

Request to add Hockey Canada

11The BYHA filed a request for Order seeking to add Hockey Canada to their applications on the basis that the dressing room policy they follow was handed down by Hockey Canada. At this stage, I am not satisfied that it would be fair, just or expeditious to add Hockey Canada to the proceedings. Adding them would inevitably delay the hearing. I note that the initial response filed by the BYHA stated that their policy was developed in 2002 in keeping with the Ontario Hockey Federation handbook.

Extending Timelines

12The respondents have been advised by letter from the Registrar-Transition that the timelines for filing their Additional Statements of Facts and Response to Remedy, if any, was extended to January 4, 2010.

Hearing Preparation

13This hearing will proceed on January 21, 2010. The applicants should be prepared to give evidence in accordance with this Interim Decision and the respondents should be prepared to cross examine the applicants. The respondents do not need to bring any witnesses on that day.