Forrest v. Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation, 2009 HRTO 354

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Gerald Forrest

Applicant

-and-

Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: March 26, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 354

Indexed as: Forrest v. Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation

1This is an Application filed under section 53(3) of the Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) on September 19, 2008.

2In Interim Decisions 2009 HRTO 47 and 2009 HRTO 92 (the “Decision”) the Tribunal rejected a request by Mr. Forrest to amend the Application by adding a new ground of discrimination to that alleged in the human rights complaint filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

3The applicant has made a request for reconsideration of the Decision pursuant to Rule 25.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure for Transitional Applications under sections 53(3) and 53(5) of the Code.

4Rule 25.1 provides that a party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal. A decision will only be considered a final decision where the decision has the effect of finally determining the substance of the dispute or a central element of the dispute between the parties (see for example Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Ontario Teachers’ Federation, 1994 CanLII 10578 (ON CTGD), 19 O.R. (3d) 371). In Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board et al., 2008 HRTO 34, the Tribunal considered at length the question of when a decision should be considered a final one for purposes of the reconsideration power.

5After carefully considering the policy issues at play and the relevant authorities the Tribunal concluded:

As a general principle, having regard to the approach taken in other forums as well as the above discussion, it is reasonable to view a “final decision” as one that disposes of some or all of the central issues in the complaint as between the parties. This general principle will take on a more precise shape as the Tribunal applies it to cases before it.

6The Tribunal went on to conclude that the decision in issue – to not add a number of related party respondents – had the effect of depriving the complainant of “any prospect of a remedy” as against those respondents and accordingly was a final decision in that it “disposed of the entirety of the complaint as between the complainant and these respondents”.

7It is important to note that the question arises here in a section 53(3) Application where the human rights complaint underlying the Application defines the scope of the dispute. As a result the Tribunal has made Rules for the processing of these applications in a fair, just and highly expeditious way.

8Having considered these authorities and the context in which the issue arises, I have concluded that the Decision is not a final one. I find that it does not deprive the applicant of “any prospect of a remedy” as against the respondent and does not dispose of the entirety of the complaint. Not being a final decision it can not, at this time, be the subject of a reconsideration request (see Galuego v. Kensington Health Centre 2009 HRTO 49). For these reasons the request for reconsideration is dismissed.

5I am not seized of the Application.