HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
B.G. as represented by his litigation guardian R.B.
Applicant
-and-
Central Ontario Wolves Hockey Association
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: B.G. v. Central Ontario Wolves Hockey Association
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
B.G. as represented by his litigation guardian R.B., Applicant
Self-represented
1The applicant has filed an Application on behalf of her son alleging discrimination with respect to services contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), based on family status. The Application relates to the fact that the applicant believes that her son has been “cut” from a hockey team because of issues that arose with his father when he was on another team. The applicant believes that her son is being punished for the perceived actions of his father.
2This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s Request for interim remedies and a Request to expedite the Application.
3The respondent has not yet filed its Response and the Tribunal advised it that it did not have to file responses to the applicant’s Requests. The respondent has been directed to file a Form 2, Response but the time for the receipt of this document has not passed. As such, this Interim Decision relies solely on the applicant’s version of events.
Request for Interim Remedy and Request to Expedite
4The applicant seeks a number of interim remedial orders from the Tribunal, including that an expedited mediation be held. Since mediation is a voluntary process, the Tribunal cannot order a respondent to attend mediation. If the parties consent to early mediation then the Tribunal will endeavour to schedule this as soon as possible.
5The applicant also requests that the Tribunal issue an interim order preventing final selections from being made by the team in question until this matter is resolved.
6The applicant seeks to expedite the Application because she believes that her son may be unable to play for a team at his level during the next hockey season.
Interim Remedy
7The conditions for awarding an Interim Remedy are set out as follows in Rule 23.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, which states:
The Tribunal may grant an Interim Remedy where it is satisfied that
a) the Application appears to have merit;
b) the balance of harm or convenience favors granting the Interim Remedy requested; and,
c) it is just and appropriate in the circumstances to do so.
8In TA v. 60 Montclair (“Montclair”), 2009 HRTO 369 at para. 23, the Tribunal held that the fundamental consideration in determining whether to award an Interim Remedy is “whether an Interim Remedy is necessary to facilitate and ensure the Tribunal is able to award a complete, appropriate and effective remedy at the end of a hearing, should a violation of the Code be found.”
9The Tribunal in Montclair, above, also noted that an applicant seeking an Interim Remedy will have a significant onus to meet to demonstrate that the Request meets the three elements in Rule 23.2 and is necessary to further the remedial objects of the Code. See also Kwan v. Hospital for Sick Children, 2009 HRTO 621.
10Normally, the Tribunal’s power to order a respondent to do or refrain from doing something is contingent upon a finding that the respondent has violated the Code. Interim remedies are extraordinary in that they constitute an order to do or refrain from doing something in the absence of a finding that the Code has been violated.
11I have considered the circumstances of this case, and I am of the view that it is not appropriate to grant any interim remedies in this matter. It is unclear to me how it would further the objectives of the Code to prevent a hockey team from finally selecting its players. Further, the balance of harm favours denying the request for interim remedy, since a number of players would be affected by such an order. I note also that this is not a remedy that would be granted by the Tribunal even if the applicant is ultimately successful.
Request to expedite
12In 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.
13Though the applicant is concerned about the impact that this would have on the ability of her son to play hockey, this does not warrant the Tribunal expediting this matter. As such the Request to expedite is denied.
Order
14The applicant’s Request for interim remedies and Request to expedite the Application are denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 3rd day of May, 2016.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair