Yahoo Sports 
Human rights tribunal investigating Toronto Argonauts over alleged threat to cancel men's rights activist's season tickets following White Ribbon criticism
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario is out of one sports arena thanks to foreign soccer players dropping their anti-turf lawsuit, but they're into another one, investigating a complaint by a self-described men's rights activist that the team threatened to cancel his season tickets after he complained about their support for the anti-domestic violence White Ribbon Campaign. Complainant Robert Heath argued to the tribunal the WRC "discriminates against men" and that his rights under the Ontario Human Rights Code were being violated by the team showing ads for the WRC during games. That complaint was dismissed earlier this month, but the tribunal allowed another one of Heath's charges (that the Argonauts threatened to cancel his tickets in reprisal, which they deny) to proceed, as The Toronto Sun reported Jan. 16. TSN, Deadspin and Matt English all weighed in on the story Monday, bringing it to a much broader audience, but it doesn't appear that the tribunal's issued any further decisions since Jan. 16. However, it's well worth examining this case, and just what it could mean for the Argonauts and the CFL.
The critical takeaway is that this case should do absolutely nothing to stop the CFL and its teams from supporting campaigns against domestic violence. Stopping that was Heath's major focus, and he's failed there. From his complaint (via English): "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." (As English notes, the statistics Heath cites are ridiculous.) That complaint was dismissed in a Jan. 13 ruling by tribunal adjudicator Keith Brennenstuhl:
[9] It 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.
[10] It 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.
[11] I 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.
That's a ruling that bodes well for the CFL's teams and their endeavours to support anti-domestic violence programs. There have been a lot of positive steps on that front, from the B.C. Lions' Be More Than A Bystander program to the Calgary Stampeders and Edmonton Eskimos teaming up with the Alberta Council of Women's Shelters to the Argos' involvement with the White Ribbon Campaign (a program started in Canada in 1991 in the wake of the 1989 École Polytechnique massacre, it's since grown into "the world’s largest movement of men and boys working to end violence against women and girls, promote gender equity, healthy relationships and a new vision of masculinity"; Argonauts' CEO Chris Rudge was involved in the campaign's founding). The league is working with those organizations and more to develop a CFL-wide domestic violence policy (something that's needed, as there are several controversial cases involving players currently in the league). If the tribunal had taken Heath's complaint on that front more seriously, other self-described "men's rights activists" might have followed suit and threatened the CFL teams involved in anti-domestic violence programs with further legal action. The denial of his complaint on that front should reaffirm that CFL teams are welcome to support these programs.
The part of the case that is still proceeding, Heath's claim that the Argonauts threatened reprisal against him, can't be just ignored. However, Brennenstuhl's initial ruling didn't find for or against that. Here's the key part of what he wrote on that front:
[12] The 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.
[13] Section 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 (CanLII).
[14] While 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[15] The applicant’s allegations of reprisal can proceed. All other allegations in the Application are dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.
This shouldn't be read as Brennenstuhl necessarily finding any merit in Heath's claim of reprisal. Instead, he wants to hear testimony on that and receive a formal response from the Argonauts, which they have 35 days to file. If their response and their testimony is convincing enough, perhaps this won't lead to anything. However, it's notable that a reprisal case can still be heard even if the applicant's Code complaint is shot down, as Heath's was. If he can prove that the Argos threatened him (or if they can't prove that they didn't), he may still find some legal success here. Regardless of if he does or not, teams should probably be very careful when trying to cancel someone's season tickets, especially in a province with a strict human rights code like Ontario's. Heath and his beliefs may be highly objectionable to many, but trying to keep him or others from attending games would likely create more problems than it solves.
