Williams v. Ottawa Internationals Soccer, 2009 HRTO 48

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Anne Williams by her litigation guardian Carol-Lynne Saad

Applicant

-and-

Ottawa Internationals Soccer Club, Stanley Staple, William Lloyd and Robert Monaghan

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: January 14, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 48

Indexed as: Williams v. Ottawa Internationals Soccer

1This is an Application filed under section 53(3) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended (the "Code") on July 24, 2008.

2The purpose of this interim decision is to issue case management directions with respect to the Application.

S. 53(3) Not Appropriate

3The respondents state that this matter is not appropriately dealt with in the section 53(3) process because of its complexity and the number of witnesses to be called and seek an order transferring the Application to be dealt with under Part IV of the Code.

4The Tribunal recently adopted new Rules of Procedure for Transitional Applications under Sections 53(3) and 53(5) of the Human Rights Code (Transitional Application Rules). These Rules and the Tribunal's Guide to Section 53(3) Applications contemplate that these applications will be dealt with in a highly expeditious manner. However the Tribunal always retains the discretion to deal with a matter in a manner that is appropriate to the circumstances. Accordingly there is no basis for the Order sought by the respondents. I also note that the provisions of the new Transitional Application Rules that relate to applications made under section 53(3) of the Code are the same as those under the recently in force Rules of Procedure for Applications under Section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code and the adoption of the new rules for applications made under both section 53(3) and 53(5) of the Code therefore raises no interpretative issues.

Addition of a new ground of discrimination

5The applicant seeks to amend the Application to add family status as a new ground of discrimination. The respondents object to the proposed amendment. An application filed with the Tribunal under section 53(3) of the Code must be based on the "subject-matter of the complaint" originally filed at the Commission.

6The original complaint filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission alleged that the applicant had been discriminated against in her access to the services of the soccer club on the basis of race and ethnic origin, and was also subject to a reprisal for attempting to enforce her rights under the Code. At the heart of the dispute between the parties is the allegation that the applicant was prevented from registering for soccer with the club as a reprisal for the parents having raised concerns about the treatment of another daughter made in 2004. The respondents stated that the reason why the applicant was not allowed to register was the conduct of her parents in the manner in which they raised their concerns about alleged discrimination against their other daughter in 2004.

7Rule 6.3 of the Transitional Application Rules provides that the Tribunal will not entertain preliminary requests to add grounds or expand the subject matter of the complaint. Such requests therefore will not normally be entertained except where to do so is necessary to ensure a fair, just and highly expeditious process for the determination of the application.

8The respondents argue that the amendment represents an attempt by the applicant to "change course because of the weakness of the case." The respondent makes no allegation of prejudice in responding to the amendment.

9I find that the amendment requested by the applicant is appropriate in these circumstances. I find that there is no prejudice to the respondents in amending the complaint at this stage of the proceedings. Ultimately a key issue in this application appears to be whether the applicant has been discriminated or reprised against because of actions taken several years earlier by her parents. Accordingly the amendment does not add additional factual allegations; neither does it expand the scope of the complaint, but may enable the parties to focus on the ultimate issue at the heart of their dispute and thereby assist in ensuring a just, fair and highly expeditious resolution of this dispute.

Other Issues

10The respondents have asked that an individual respondent be removed from the Application and that the ground of reprisal be removed as well. The submissions in support of those requests are in the nature of submissions going to the merits of the Application and can not be entertained on a preliminary basis. They are matters that can be dealt with at the case resolution conference.