Robert Heath v. Toronto Argonauts Football Club, 2015 HRTO 51

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Robert Heath

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Argonauts Football Club

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: January 13, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 51

Indexed as: Heath v. Toronto Argonauts Football Club

APPEARANCES

Robert Heath, Applicant

Self-represented

Toronto Argonauts Football Club, Respondent

Patricia Murray, Counsel

Introduction

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to sex and reprisal or threat of reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The applicant’s allegations are set out in the narrative portion of the Application which reads as follows:

On July 5, 2014, while at the Toronto Argonauts game, I saw an advertisement, with the Argonauts logo on it, for the White Ribbon Campaign (WRC). Having been a victim of domestic violence 27 years ago and knowing that the WRC only looks at half the population and not the whole population (50% of victims of domestic violence are men), and the WRC claims that women are the victims and men are the villains, the WRC sexually discriminates against men. Therefore, if the Toronto Argonauts are supporting the WRC, then they are supporting sexual discrimination against men. On July 9, 2014 @ 10:30 a.m., I talked with Jason Colaro, Community Service Department with the Toronto Argonauts, and after explaining the situation, John stated that the Argonauts will continue to support the WRC and supports the discrimination. He also threatened to stop my season ticket subscription. At the July 12, 2014, Argonaut game, I saw the same advertisement and the Argonauts, on the ribbon electronics boards, had advertisement for men to stop violence against and even on the Jumbotron, was advertising for men to take the pledge to stop violence against women. I then went to the Customer Service at the Roger’s Centre and filed a complaint against the Toronto Argonauts. I have not heard back from my complaint. On July 14, 2014, @ 12:15 p.m., I called Chris Rudge, President and CEO of the Toronto Argonauts, and left a message to contact me. He did return my call @ 3:55 p.m., and when I tried to state my claim and mention the WRC, he became hostile in saying that he helped create the WRC and it was too bad if it discriminates against men, then he hung the phone up on me. Having season tickets to the Toronto Argonauts games, they are supposed to make me feel secure, both physically and mentally, so that I can enjoy the games. Having advertisement that discriminates against men does not give me the feeling of being secure and to enjoy the games.

3Upon receipt of the Application, the Tribunal, on its own initiative, directed a summary hearing by teleconference pursuant to Rule 19A, without requiring the respondent to file a Response. The direction indicated that:

Having reviewed the Application, it appears that the applicant may be unable to prove a link to the grounds alleged. There may also be an issue as to whether, assuming the allegations to be true, the applicant’s allegations may be reasonably considered to amount to a Code violation.

4The parties were asked to provide copies of any documents or cases they intended to rely upon. The respondent provided written submissions.

5The summary hearing was held on January 6, 2014.

analysis and decision

6Rule 19A provides as follows:

The Tribunal may hold a summary hearing, on its own initiative or at the request of a party, on the question of whether an Application should be dismissed in whole or in part on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application or part of the Application will succeed.

7The Tribunal set out the analysis as follows in Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994 at paras 7-9:

A summary hearing is generally ordered at an early stage in the process. In some cases, the respondent may not have been required to provide a response. In others, the respondent may have responded but disclosure of all arguably relevant documents and the preparation of witness statements, which generally occur following the Notice of Hearing, will not yet have happened.

In some cases, the issue at the summary hearing may be whether, assuming all the allegations in the application to be true, it has a reasonable prospect of success. In these cases, the focus will generally be on the legal analysis and whether what the applicant alleges may be reasonably considered to amount to a Code violation.

In other cases, the focus of the summary hearing may be on whether there is a reasonable prospect that the applicant can prove, on a balance of probabilities, that his or her Code rights were violated. Often, such cases will deal with whether the applicant can show a link between an event and the grounds upon which he or she makes the claim. The issue will be whether there is a reasonable prospect that evidence the applicant has or that is reasonably available to him or her can show a link between the event and the alleged prohibited ground.

8The applicant claims that he was discriminated against on the basis of sex as a result of the Argonauts decision to visibly support the WRC at its football games. The applicant seems to allege that WRC engages in discrimination against men because the WRC does not advocate for male victims of domestic violence and because the WRC portrays men as villains. The applicant maintains that the Argonauts, in expressing support for this cause, has similarly discriminated against men and is perpetuating the message that men are villains. He asserts that as a male this constitutes discrimination against him.

9It is not the purpose of the Code to generally police the charities, philanthropic groups or other organizations of a like nature that a service provider supports. The fact that the Argonauts have chosen to support a cause which recognizes that violence against women is an insidious reality and which seeks to reduce that violence does not mean that it supports violence against men or any other group in society, nor does it infer they even take any position on these or any other countless social issues. Accordingly there is simply no basis to the applicant’s claim that he has, as a male, been subjected to Code related discrimination (even if he does sincerely believe this). Taken to its extreme, the applicant’s position would preclude any organization (and perhaps even any individual) from supporting any charitable or philanthropic cause as it would be open to complaints of discrimination in its choice of causes to support. This simply is not tenable. If anything, programs which seek to reduce discrimination and inequality – and it is difficult to imagine how any program designed to reduce violence against an identifiable group is not consistent with reducing discrimination and inequality - are to be encouraged as consistent with and supportive of the underlying purposes of the Code.

10It is evident that the applicant does not support the WRC and that he was disappointed that the Argonauts chose to provide its name to the campaign. However, a person’s hurt feelings, anxiety or upset about a situation does not mean that the Code was violated.

11I find that there is no reasonable prospect that the allegations that the applicant was subjected to discrimination at the hands of the respondent when it promoted the WRC will succeed. These allegations cannot reasonably be considered to amount to a Code violation.

12The applicant also alleges that he was reprised against when the respondent threatened to cancel his ticket subscription after he complained to the respondent about the WRC.

13Section 8 of the Code specifically prohibits both reprisal and the threat of reprisal for claiming rights under Part 1 of the Code. In an application alleging reprisal, the alleged action or threat of reprisal must be related to the applicant having claimed, or attempted to enforce a right under the Code. There is no requirement that the Tribunal find the respondent did in fact violate the applicant’s rights under the Code. See Noble v. York University, 2010 HRTO 878.

14While the Respondent disputes that it ever threatened the applicant with the cancellation of his ticket subscription, this is not the stage at which I can appropriately make such a factual finding. I have heard no testimony on this point and the respondent has not yet been provided with the opportunity to submit a formal Response to the Application. I cannot, therefore, find there is no reasonable prospect of success with respect to the applicant’s allegations of reprisal as found in his pleadings.

ORDER

15The applicant’s allegations of reprisal can proceed. All other allegations in the Application are dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

16The respondent will have 35 days from the date of this Interim Decision to file a Response limited to the applicant’s allegations of reprisal.

17I am not seized of this matter.