Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
Between:
Abby Wambach and Players on National Teams Participating in the FIFA Women's World Cup Canada 2015 Listed on Schedule "A" Applicants
-and-
Canadian Soccer Association and Fédération Internationale de Football Association Respondents
Interim Decision
Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: November 7, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1635 Indexed as: Wambach v. Canadian Soccer Association
Written Submissions
Abby Wambach and Players on National Teams Participating in the FIFA Women's World Cup Canada 2015 Listed on Schedule "A", Applicants David Wright, Counsel
Canadian Soccer Association, Respondent Joseph Arvay and Sean Hern, Counsel
Fédération Internationale de Football Association, Respondent Jérôme Valcke, Representative
1This Interim Decision addresses the applicants’ Request to Expedite Proceedings in this matter.
Background to the Application
2By Application filed on October 1, 2014, the applicants alleged that the respondents discriminated against them because of sex contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). In particular, the applicants alleged that the respondents have taken, and continue to take, actions that will force women players to play games on artificial turf during the FIFA Women’s World Cup Canada 2015. The applicants allege that artificial turf is dangerous to athletes and considered sub-standard for international play. The applicants allege that the respondents’ actions discriminate against them based on sex because, according to the applicants, neither respondent requires men’s soccer players to play World Cup games on artificial turf. The applicants seek remedial orders that will require the FIFA Women’s World Cup Canada 2015 to be played on natural grass fields. The Application was delivered to the named respondents by the Tribunal on October 3, 2014, in accordance with its normal practices.
3The Canadian Soccer Association (“CSA”) has denied any discrimination.
4The Fédération Internationale de Football Association ("FIFA") has refused acceptance of the Application on the basis that the procedure for delivery provided for by relevant international treaties had not been complied with in the present case.
Request to Expedite Application
Parties’ Positions
5At the same time that they filed their Application, the applicants filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings (“Request”). The applicants requested that the Tribunal deal with the Application on an expedited basis. The applicants submitted that it is necessary for the Tribunal to expedite this proceeding in order for the applicants to obtain an effective remedy in this case. They noted that tournament games will take place between June 6, 2015 and July 5, 2015. According to the applicants, preparation would need to begin by early 2015 in order to permit grass playing fields to be in place for the start of the tournament. The applicants proposed a highly expedited schedule that would see the Application heard by November 26, 2014.
6The Canadian Soccer Association opposed the applicants’ Request for three main reasons. First, the CSA submitted that the Request should be denied due to the applicants’ failure to bring forward their Application to the Tribunal in a timely way. According to the CSA, it submitted its bid for the tournament to FIFA in 2011 and FIFA accepted the bid in March of 2011. The official host cities for the tournament were announced in May 2012. The match schedule for the tournament was announced in March 2013. This schedule indicated the stadiums that would be used for the tournament. According to the CSA, anyone familiar with Canada’s sports facilities would have known by March 2011 or May 2012 that at least some of the tournament’s games would be played on artificial turf. In any event, the CSA submitted that by March 2013 there could have been no confusion that the tournament, including the final championship game, would be played on artificial turf. The CSA argued that the applicants waited over 18 months to file their Application and it would not be appropriate for the Tribunal to expedite the proceeding in these circumstances.
7Second, the CSA submitted that the respondents will suffer prejudice if the proceeding is expedited. The CSA noted that there are significant preliminary and jurisdictional issues to be addressed in this case. It submitted that the case is also legally complex and factually contentious. As such, the case likely will require extensive expert evidence. The CSA argued that imposing an expedited time frame on the respondents would impede their ability to gather and present evidence in an orderly and comprehensive manner.
8Third, the CSA submitted that the applicants have provided no evidence that there is a meaningful remedy available to them now that will not be available if the proceeding is not expedited. The CSA’s argument on this point appears to be that it is not possible for the Tribunal to render a