HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
T.M. by her next friend G.M.
Applicant
-and-
North Bay Canoe Club and Mark Robinson
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Sherry Liang
Indexed as: T.M. 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 applicant has made a Request to Expedite the Application. I have determined to deny the Request. Under the Tribunal’s Rules, I need not give reasons for a denial of such a Request. However, given that this Application was originally filed together with another one, File No. 2011-08282-I, on which I have granted a similar Request, I find it appropriate to provide my reasons in this case
2The Application alleges that the respondents discriminated against the applicant by denying her membership in the North Bay Canoe Club (the “Club”) because she has a disability.
3The applicant states that she has cerebral palsy. She 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 the Club was granted funds from the Ontario Trillium Foundation for the purpose of development of a disabled athlete program, termed Paddle All. She states that she intended to join the Club through this program, but learned that the Club did not wish her to join and that it did not have the ability to accommodate her disability.
4The respondents state they have participated in Canoe Kayak Canda’s Paddle All program since its inception. They state that the Club never received any membership application from the applicant, nor ever had the opportunity to speak to her, her parents or any professional about the support she may require. They also state that they would welcome her application for membership and to the extent her disabilities can be accommodated within the Club’s resources, they will engage the applicant in the Paddle All program and any other opportunities that can be made available to her safely.
5In support of the Request is a Declaration from the applicant’s father, her next friend in this Application. He agrees that the Club has informed the applicant and himself, through their lawyers, that the applicant may complete an application for membership. However, he states that the Club has refused to explain what steps, if any, if will take to evaluate and, if possible, accommodate, the applicant’s special needs. Without any information or assurances from the Club about how any future application will be evaluated, he states that he fears that the invitation to submit an application has not been extended in good faith and that it will only invite further discrimination against the applicant.
6In addressing the need for an expedited hearing, he states that given the Club’s failure to explain what steps it would take to accommodate the applicant or to describe how it plans to fulfill its obligations to her under the Code, he believes there is a substantial risk that the applicant would be subjected to further discrimination and he expects she will miss the 2012 paddling season if the Tribunal does not implement an expedited hearing schedule.
7The 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.
8In 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.
9I am not convinced that the applicant has demonstrated truly urgent circumstances. The respondents have indicated a willingness to extend to the applicant the very opportunity she seeks. There is no reason to believe that their position has been taken in bad faith. The suggestion that an application for membership will only result in further discrimination is speculative. I am not satisfied, on the basis of the material before me, that there is a real prospect the applicant will be denied the opportunity to participate in the 2012 paddling season, absent an expedited resolution of this Application.
10For these reasons, the Request is denied.
11As the parties have consented to participate in mediation, the Tribunal will schedule a mediation in this matter. Given the time that has passed, the Tribunal will schedule the mediation on an expedited basis.
12I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto this 6th day of March, 2012.
“Signed by”
Sherry Liang
Vice-chair