HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
R.J. by her next friend T.J.
Applicant
-and-
North Bay Canoe Club and Mark Robinson
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Sherry Liang
Indexed as: R.J. v. North Bay Canoe Club
1This is an Application filed on March 7, 2011, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The purpose of this Interim Decision is to determine the applicant’s Request to Expedite the Application.
2The Application alleges that the respondents discriminated against the applicant on the ground of her gender by treating her differently from boys who participate in canoe races and training through the respondent organization the North Bay Canoe Club (the “Club”).
3The applicant alleges that the Club is the only canoe/kayak club in North Bay and that in order to compete at a provincial or national level, paddlers must generally belong to a registered canoe club. The applicant states that she has been a member of the Club and has entered competitions through the Club. However, starting in 2009, the Club began to treat her disadvantageously in comparison to boys in the Club by, amongst other things, refusing her permission to compete in certain races and refusing to provide her with a boat to use in certain competitions. Further, the applicant alleges a reprisal under the Code, in that when the respondents found out about the Application, they excluded the applicant from participating in any Club activities unless she signed a statement agreeing not to escalate matters to outside parties.
4The respondents rely on section 20(3) of the Code, which states that the right to equal treatment with respect to services and facilities is not infringed where a recreational club restricts or qualifies access to its services or facilities because of sex. In any event, they deny that any of their actions were based on gender discrimination, and provide explanations for the assertions that the applicant was denied permission to compete in certain races or refused the use of a Club boat. Further, the respondents deny any reprisal under the Code.
5The processing of this Application has taken some months, and it was only in January 2012 that the final pleading, a Reply, was filed. There are several reasons for the delay in reaching this stage, all of which are unnecessary to detail here. The result however, is that by now, a year after the Application was filed, there has neither been mediation nor a hearing in this matter. In the circumstances, although the Request to Expedite the Application was not made until almost a year after the Application was filed, I find it appropriate to consider it.
6In support of the Request is a Declaration from her applicant’s mother, her next friend in the Application. The applicant’s mother states that because of her unwillingness to sign the letter requested by the Club in May 2011, the applicant was not able to participate in any Club activities in the 2011 paddling season. She states that the 2012 paddling season will begin in the early spring, at the end of April or early May, and that the competitive season is quite short. She states that given there does not appear to be any prospect of her daughter’s reinstatement at the Club without the Tribunal’s intervention, she may miss the 2012 paddling season unless there is an expedited hearing.
7The applicant requests that a hearing of the Application take place before April 15, 2012, and that the deadlines under Rules 16 and 17 be abridged.
8The respondents have not filed a Response to the Request and the time for doing so has elapsed.
DECISION
9The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provide for applications to be dealt with in an expedited manner in urgent circumstances. Rule 21.1 provides that an applicant may request that the Tribunal deal with an application on an expedited basis in circumstances which require an urgent resolution of the issues in dispute. Rule 21.2 requires an applicant seeking an expedited application to identify any urgent circumstances that may affect the fair and just resolution of the merits of the application and the harm that would result if the request is denied.
10In Weerawardane v. 2152458 Ontario Ltd., 2008 HRTO 53, at para. 9, the Tribunal held that for a request to expedite to be granted, the applicant must demonstrate that the circumstances are truly urgent, requiring the resolution of the human rights dispute in a particularly rapid manner as compared with the time required to complete the Tribunal’s regular process.
11Having regard to the material before me, I grant the Request to Expedite. I am satisfied that the applicant has identified urgent circumstances that require the resolution of the dispute in a particularly rapid manner. The imminence of the next paddling season, its short duration, and the real prospect that the applicant may lose another year of participation in paddling competition because of the unavailability of other paddling clubs are factors that lead me to direct the expedition of the hearing.
12Further, although the respondents have not consented to the Request to Expedite, they have not objected and have thus not identified any prejudice to them in granting the request.
13I therefore direct as follows:
The hearing in this matter will take place in North Bay on April 3 and 4, 2012. A Notice of Hearing will follow which will confirm the venue of the hearing.
The parties are directed to comply with the requirements of Rule 16.1 (delivery of arguably relevant documents) by March 20, 2012.
The parties are directed to comply with the requirements of Rules 16.2, 16.3 and 17 (documents to be used in hearing; witness statements) by March 27, 2012.
14The parties’ attention is directed to Rule 15A (Mediation-Adjudication with Agreement of the Parties) and are requested to advise the Tribunal if they wish to request Mediation-Adjudication.
15I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto this 6th day of March, 2012.
“Signed by”
Sherry Liang
Vice-chair