HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Steven Vandevelde
Applicant
-and-
GoodLife Fitness Centres Inc.
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: David A. Wright
Indexed as: Vandevelde v. GoodLife Fitness Centres Inc.
1This is an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services and facilities because of family status and sex. This Interim Decision deals with three issues: (i) removal of the personal respondents; (ii) organization of the hearing; and (iii) the applicant’s request for production. The Application is scheduled for hearing on April 30, 2012.
BACKGROUND
2The applicant, at the relevant time, was the father of a young child and on parental leave. The respondent operates a chain of fitness clubs. The child minding facility at the co-ed club where the applicant wished to work out with his wife had recently closed. A women’s-only club nearby had a child minding facility. He objects to the fact that he was not permitted to either leave his child at the child minding facility at the women’s only club and work out with his wife at the co-ed club, or to leave his child at the child minding club and work out with his wife in the women’s only club.
3In its Response, the respondent states that it is not legally permitted as a result of the Day Nurseries Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. D.2, to mind children of parents who have left the premises. It notes that there are two clubs within 15 km that offer the service. It relies upon s. 20(3) of the Code, which provides that the Code is not violated where a “recreational club restricts or qualifies access to its services or facilities…because of …age, sex, marital status or family status.”
PERSONAL RESPONDENTS
4On consent, the respondents’ request to remove the personal respondents is granted. As the respondent has counsel, counsel is the appropriate contact person.
HEARING MANAGEMENT
5In view of the issues raised in the Response, in my view there is a significant issue about whether the Application has a reasonable prospect of success. Accordingly, the hearing will commence with submissions on whether the Application should be dismissed on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success. The parties’ attention is directed to the discussion of this issue in Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994 and Pellerin v. Conseil scolaire de district catholique Centre-sud, 2011 HRTO 1777.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
6The applicant seeks audited financial statements for several of the respondent’s locations. He states that this is to validate financial information already provided and to compare those results with other locations with active child-minding facilities. In my view, the applicant has not shown, based on the issues in the Application and Response, that this information is arguably relevant to the issues in the proceeding. If the respondent’s financial information becomes relevant, the Tribunal may revisit this determination at a later stage in the proceedings.
ORDER
7The personal respondents are removed. The applicant’s Request for production is denied. The hearing will commence with oral submissions on whether the Application should be dismissed on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success.
Dated at Toronto, this 29th day of March, 2012.
”signed by”______
David A. Wright
Associate Chair