The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has denied a request to hear the Turfgate case early.
The decision is a major set-back for those that are hoping to force the 2015 Women's World Cup to change from artificial turf to grass.
Although the ruling expressed sympathy towards the women's claim that an expedited case was needed to make the necessary change to grass in time for the tournament, that need was said to be insufficient to justify an expedited hearing.
The primary reason for denial was due to the women not filing until 18 months after they reasonably would have known about the alleged discrimination.
"As significant as this case may be for the (women), I do not find it appropriate to expedite an application where the applicants have not themselves acted expediently," adjudicator Jo-Anne Pickel wrote in her ruling.
Additionally, Pickel suggested in her ruling that she felt that the complexity of the issue was such that it was unlikely that she would be able to make a ruling in time for the women to gain the remedy they seek -- namely the instillation of grass.
Pickel did offer an expedited mediation process, if the parties were interested in it. The women's lawyer has indicated in media reports today that they are willing. The CSA has seven days to respond.
If the CSA does not agree it would appear that any chance for grass to be installed will be eliminated.
FIFA did not respond to the filing. They claim that the HRTO does not hold jurisdiction over the organization and that there are appropriate forums for the women to file a dispute with them with. Pickel wrote that she will rule on FIFA's position in the near future.
Pickel also indicated that she would make a separate ruling on the women's claim that some players were being intimidated to remove themselves from the claim soon.