Victor Refalo v. Pickering Soccer Club, 2011 HRTO 1403

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Victor Refalo

Applicant

-and-

Pickering Soccer Club, Durham Region Soccer Association,

Ontario Soccer Association and Paul Spadafora

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty

Date: July 27, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1403

Indexed as: Refalo v. Pickering Soccer Club

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). In the Application, the applicant alleges discrimination in goods, services or facilities on the basis of employment.

2In essence, the applicant alleges that while he was attending his daughter’s soccer game, the personal respondent (the coach for a different team) harassed the applicant and made discriminatory comments that referred to him. He alleges that the respondents failed to take appropriate steps to address his allegations of harassment and discrimination.

3The respondents deny the allegations of discrimination.

4On June 1, 2011, the Applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“Request”) in which he seeks to amend the Application to include the social area of “employment”. In the Request, the applicant states that he was a volunteer for the Pickering Soccer Club at the material times.

5None of the respondents have filed a Response to the Request.

6The respondents, Durham Region Soccer Association and the Ontario Soccer Association, have twice requested an extension of time in which to file the Response. Both extension requests were granted by the Tribunal. The respondent was to file a Response to the Request by July 8, 2011. No Response was received.

7The Registrar’s office took the further step of contacting counsel for these two respondents by telephone regarding the Response. Counsel has not responded to the Registrar’s inquiries.

8In my view, it is appropriate to determine the Request based on the materials filed with the Tribunal.

9The Request is granted. The Application is at a relatively early stage, a hearing has been scheduled for October 2011. In view of the stage at which the Request to amend is made, the nature of the amendments, and the absence of any apparent prejudice, I see no reason to deny the applicant an opportunity to make the requested amendments to the Application.

11I am not seized of this matter.