H.S. v. The Private Academy, 2015 HRTO 1209

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

H.S

Applicant

-and-

The Private Academy

Respondent

AND BETWEEN:

S.S

Applicant

-and-

The Private Academy

Respondent

AND BETWEEN:

N.S by his litigation guardian, S.S.

Applicant

-and-

The Private Academy

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta

Date: September 11, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1209

Indexed as: H.S. v. The Private Academy

APPEARANCES

H.S., S.S. and N.S., represented by his litigation guardian, S.S., Applicants

Self-represented

The Private Academy, Respondent

Adrian Miedema, Counsel

Introduction

1These are three Applications filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to services because of sex and association with a person identified by a prohibited ground.

2The applicants, H.S. and S.S., are a same sex couple, who wished to enroll their child, N.S., in the respondent school, which is a privately owned and operated Christian school. The parents allege that their child was denied admission into the preschool program because of their status as a same sex married couple.

3The respondent school argues that it is a “special interest organization” and relies on the defence in section 18 of the Code which reads as follows:

The rights under Part I to equal treatment with respect to services and facilities, with or without accommodation, are not infringed where membership or participation in a religious, philanthropic, educational, fraternal or social institution or organization that is primarily engaged in serving the interests of persons identified by a prohibited ground of discrimination is restricted to persons who are similarly identified.

4The respondent seeks dismissal of the Application on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that it will succeed. The applicants oppose the request for summary dismissal, argue that there are many factual and legal issues in dispute and ask that the matter proceed to a full hearing.

5This case raises complex legal issues that are best determined with the benefit of a full evidentiary record. It is not an appropriate case for dismissal under the summary hearing process.

6The matter shall proceed to a full hearing.