Mahes Weerawardane v. 2152458 Ontario Ltd., 2008 HRTO 66

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mahes Weerawardane

Applicant

-and-

2152458 Ontario Ltd. (Howard Johnson Inn and Suites) and Jianing (Warren) Huang

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright

Date: September 5, 2008

Citation: 2008 HRTO 66

Indexed as: Weerawardane v. 2152458 Ontario Ltd.

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario 655 Bay Street, 14th Floor Toronto ON M7A 2C7 Phone (416) 326-1312 / 1-866-598-0322 Fax (416) 326-2199 / 1-866-355-6099 TTY (416) 314-2379 / 1-800-424-1168 E-mail hrto.registrar@ontario.ca Website www.hrto.ca

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Mahes Weerawardane, Applicant ) On His Own Behalf

Reasons for Decision

1In an Interim Decision in this matter dated August 15, 2008, the Tribunal denied the applicant’s request to expedite this matter: Weerawardane v. 2152458 Ontario Ltd., 2008 HRTO 53. By letter dated August 21, 2008, received at the Tribunal on August 27, 2008, the applicant requested reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision. In his letter, he provided further information on the reasons he did not ask for reinstatement in his application, his family’s income, his Employment Insurance benefits, and his expenses, matters discussed at paragraph 9 of the previous decision.

2The applicant did not make his request using the Tribunal’s Form 20 which deals with reconsideration, take into account the Tribunal rules or practice direction on reconsideration, or copy his submission to the respondents’ counsel. I draw the applicant’s attention to Rule 1.12 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure which requires that all written communications with the Tribunal must be copied to the other parties.

3As Form 20 and the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration make clear, a respondent is not required to respond to a request for reconsideration unless invited to do so by the Tribunal. In the circumstances of this request, the Tribunal would not have invited submissions from the respondents. The applicant’s letter fully sets out his grounds for seeking reconsideration. Accordingly, I will decide the request for reconsideration even though the respondents have not yet received a copy and it is not in the proper form. The Registrar’s office is directed to send the respondents a copy of the applicant’s letter with this decision.

4The request for reconsideration is denied. Under Rule 26.1 of the Tribunal’s rules, reconsideration is only available from a final decision. A final decision is “one that disposes of some or all of the central issues in the complaint as between the parties”: Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board et al., 2008 HRTO 34 at para. 41. The previous decision was not final and reconsideration is not available. Moreover, none of the new information or arguments provided by the applicant suggest a different conclusion than that “there are no particular indications of urgency in this case as compared with other dismissal cases” (para. 9).

5I note that the respondents have now filed a response and the parties have agreed to mediate. The Tribunal will schedule mediation on the earliest possible mutually agreeable date. I am not seized of this matter.