Alan Whiteley v. Osprey Media Publishing Inc. and Sun Media Corporation, 2010 HRTO 1063

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Alan Whiteley

Applicant

-and-

Osprey Media Publishing Inc. and Sun Media Corporation

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright

Date: May 12, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1063

Indexed as: Whiteley v. Osprey Media Publishing

1This Application, filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, alleges that the content of a newspaper editorial constitutes discrimination with respect to services contrary to the Code. The Tribunal has not ruled on a similar question before, and it is evident that the Application raises significant legal issues regarding the scope of the Code and freedom of expression protected by s. 13 of the Code and s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

2This Interim Decision sets a deadline by which interested parties may file requests to intervene and schedules an oral hearing on the questions of whether the Application falls within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and whether, if it does, the Application has a reasonable prospect of success. For the purposes of these preliminary questions, the Tribunal will proceed on the assumption that the allegations in the Application are true and can be proven.

3The Application alleges that the applicant was discriminated against on the basis of place of origin in goods, services or facilities by the publication of an editorial in the newspaper The County Weekly News on July 9, 2009, which purported to divide residents of Prince Edward County into two distinct groups, “locals” and “imports”. The applicant explains that the publication characterized a “local” as a “Prince Edward County native” and a “true County resident” whereas an “import” was characterized as “a know-it-all city slicker” who moved to Prince Edward County bringing “urban sensibilities, baggage, gripes, niggles and attitudes”. The applicant alleges the publication went on to vilify “import doctors” and “real estate types” who oppose the installation of wind turbines versus “locals” who take a contrary view.

4In an Interim Decision, 2009 HRTO 1934, dated November 12, 2009, the Tribunal sought written submissions regarding its jurisdiction in this matter. The applicant made brief submissions while the respondent did not make any submissions.

5In view of the significance of the legal issues raised in this Application, the Tribunal will hold a one-day hearing to hear legal submissions on the following preliminary questions:

(i) whether the Application falls within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, and

(ii) if it does, whether this Application has a reasonable prospect of success, assuming the factual allegations to be true.

6The parties shall be prepared to address the interpretation of “services” and “place of origin” in s. 1 of the Code in this context, and should also have regard to s. 13 of the Code, s. 2(b) of the Charter, and relevant jurisprudence.

7The Registrar is directed to send a copy of this Interim Decision to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the Attorney General of Ontario – Constitutional Law Branch, and the Attorney General of Canada. Any individual or organization that seeks leave to intervene shall file its Request within 45 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

8The Registrar will schedule a one-day hearing. The parties and any intervenors granted leave to participate shall file a statement of their position and any authorities upon which they intend to rely no later than seven days prior to the date of the hearing.

9The Tribunal draws the applicant’s attention to the Applicant’s Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website at www.hrto.ca or from the Registrar’s office. The Guide, at pages 2–3, provides a list of resources available to applicants appearing before the Tribunal.