From: ICTA CIO <broadcast@mg.tenniscores.com>
Date: 30 July 2018 at 11:20:33 AM GMT-4
To: phuxley@rogers.com
Subject: ICTA - SPECIAL MEETING REMINDER & APPEAL INFORMATION
Reply-To: cio@intercountytennis.com

Please note that information on the Appeal process can be found below the meeting Reminder

The Intercounty Tennis Association reminds you of its special meeting of the Members, to be held on Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at North York Civic Centre, Memorial Hall, Burgundy Room B - 5110 Yonge Street, Toronto, at 6:30pm.

Parking is available underground and at a nearby Green P.  This location is TTC/Subway accessible.

The purpose of the meeting is to review the Decision of the Human Rights Tribunal in the matter of Miller et al. vs. Intercounty Tennis Association.  A link to that decision can be found here. 

The meeting will discuss the decision and will ask the members, as represented by the Club Representatives, if they wish to:

1. File a Request for Reconsideration/Appeal.
2. Retain the incumbent law firm of Ross & McBride to represent the Association in connection with any Reconsideration/Appeal.

Only ICTA authorized club representatives or proxies can participate in the meeting.

This decision will affect the future of the Mixed League and all players within it.  It is important that we hear as many voices as possible on the direction you wish the ICTA Executive to proceed on this matter.  Please talk about the decision with your club’s executive to ensure that your Club Representative attends and represents your club’s position.

Club Representatives can send a proxy to the meeting.  The designate must be given authority in advance of the meeting to act as a club rep on behalf of the club and the designate must be attending the meeting.  Any Club Representative can only hold one proxy (2 votes total).  The proxy can be directive, which means you can indicate which way the proxy is to vote for your club.

A proxy form can be found here

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

APPEAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION

The ICTA is sending out the following information to help inform its members when deciding which way to vote.

What is the Reconsideration / Appeal Process?

Reconsideration

Reconsideration is the first step in the appeal process.  A party sends the decision back to the ruling Vice Chair and asks them to reconsider the decision based on an error in law or a misunderstanding of the prevailing law.

In our case, the Vice Chair (Pickel) resigned from the HRTO at the end of June and so reconsideration would go to another Vice Chair within the HRTO to review.

This is a mandatory step prior to Appealing the decision.

This application must be filed by August 12.  The ICTA currently have their lawyers working on this under the assumption that a) the membership will choose to move ahead and b) that there is no cost involved.  A reconsideration can be abandoned at any time.  Our legal team will find the necessary grounds on which to file this application.

This process will take about 3 months.

Judicial Review (Appeal)

A Judicial Review (JR) is what they call the appeal process within the HRTO.  This process is longer and more complicated than Reconsideration.         

The JR is heard in front of 3 Superior Court judges who would decide the case.  They are charged with deciding if there were any errors of interpretation in the evidence that was presented.

The ICTA can be joined by other groups called ‘Intervenors’ to bolster our position.  (Intervenors are organizations that will be affected by this decision (this decision could affect all sports leagues in Canada that offer mixed gender formats)). 

The JR process does not come with an automatic ‘stay’ in the decision.  It would have to be approved by the panel of judges, but it is viewed likely that this motion would pass.  This would mean that the decision, if upheld, would be deferred by a year given the time that this process takes.

This process would take between 6 and 9 months after Reconsideration.

What are the grounds for Appeal?

There are several areas that we (ICTA and Legal) disagree with Vice Chair’s decision.

1. Standing

We believe that the Vice Chair, in her decision, was very generous in her assessment on the harm done to the 3 applicants.  The applicants needed to prove that they were negatively affected by the current format of the league.  We don’t believe that the applicants met the threshold required.
 

1. Scope

The Vice Chair decided that the focus of the case should only be the ICTA Mixed League.  A broader interpretation of the question would have shown that within the ICTA’s offerings there are many more playing opportunities for women than men.

1. Evidence consideration

All the evidence indicating that the current ICTA Mixed league format meets the actual demand for competitive play at a club level in Toronto, Ontario and nationwide didn’t weigh very heavily (or at all) in the Vice Chair’s decision.

1. Damage to the league

The Vice Chair minimized the effect that her ruling could have on the ICTA financially and to the ICTA’s ability to effectively run the Mixed League

1. Level of play

The Vice Chair believed that there were sufficient numbers of strong female tennis players interested in playing in the mixed league that are not currently playing.  Our presented evidence does not support this.

1. Others

There are other areas where the decision can be questioned.  Building this case isn’t our current focus.  It will be, if we receive approval from the membership to proceed with an appeal.

What is the Financial Impact of Appealing?

The cost to the ICTA for the Judicial Review is as follows:

1. Filing Fees

These are the fees for getting the proper documentation to the court.

1. 1. $1,000
2. Lawyer Fees

Our current lawyers have agreed to proceed through the JR at a low bono rate.

1. 1. $2,000
2. Damages

It is possible that, should we lose the JR, that the applicants would be eligible to receive damages (but likely only if they get representation).

1. 1. $0 to $7,000 - Unknown

Note:  If we were to win, the applicants could be responsible to pay our legal costs and so they may choose not to defend against the JR.  This doesn’t mean that we would win.  It does mean that it would just be our voice at the hearing.

1. The costs of the legal proceedings going forward will continue to be paid for by the ICTA.  The ICTA does not intend to pass future legal costs to member clubs in the form of a one-time levy or ask member clubs to ‘foot the bill’ by contributing additional funds beyond the annual team/club fees.

What is the impact of this decision on the Mixed League?

If this decision were to remain in place, there would be great change within the ICTA and within the Mixed League in particular.  The decision indicates that the Mixed League would need to be gender equal but leaves the format of any change to the ICTA to implement.

 

There are many options that could be considered including:

 

1. Running no Mixed League
2. Playing a 4:4 Format
   1. Women - Playing opportunities remain equal
   2. Men - There would be 960 fewer weekly playing opportunities
3. Playing a 6:6 Format
   1. Women - There would be 480 more playing opportunities
   2. Men - There would be 480 fewer playing opportunities
4. Eliminating the Mixed matches from the Mixed League
   1. The league could be run with only Men’s and Women’s Doubles

 

Our records show that many more of our defaulted matches are already caused by a lack of women available to play.

 

In either of the format changes noted above, the ICTA foresees the following consequences:

1. Teams would be forced to drop out of the league because of a lack of women to fill the required spots
2. That clubs would choose to enter teams into a men’s league to satisfy demand from displaced male players (meaning that fewer women would play)
3. That clubs would have to choose how to allocate court time between competing leagues
4. That fewer clubs in the Mixed League would increase travel time and could lead to more teams leaving.
5. That the competitive balance would shift to men currently in higher levels playing against women currently playing in lower levels.
6. That fewer teams in the Mixed League will lead to decreased revenue for the ICTA.
7. That clubs that rely on teams to fuel membership might lose members.

 

There has been some conjecture, that should this decision stand, that the ICTA would instantly start a Men’s League.  This is not something that the ICTA has seriously contemplated at this time.

 

+++++++++++++++++++++

 

Thank you for taking the time to read this information.  Results of the vote will be posted on the ICTA website following the meeting on Wednesday August 1.

 

ICTA Board