Dai v. Presbytery of East Toronto, 2010 HRTO 1195

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Peikang Dai

Applicant

-and-

The Presbytery of East Toronto, Presbyterian Church of Canada

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Hinchman

Date: May 27, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1195

Indexed as: Dai v. Presbytery of East Toronto

1This Decision addresses the respondent’s Request for Reconsideration under section 45.7 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended (the “Code”) of part of the Tribunal’s Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 883.

2At a hearing conducted on December 10, 2009 (the “Hearing”), the applicant presented his evidence in support of his Application. At the conclusion of the applicant’s evidence, the respondent requested that the Tribunal dismiss the Application on the basis that the applicant had not established a prima facie case of discrimination. The respondent also requested that the Application be dismissed as the matter had been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding pursuant to s. 45.1 and requested that the personal respondent be removed as a party.

3In my Interim Decision, I declined to exercise my discretion to dismiss the Application pursuant to s. 45.1, removed the personal respondent as a party, and dismissed most of the applicant’s allegations for failure to establish a prima facie case.

4The respondent does not ask that those aspects of the Interim Decision be reconsidered.

5The respondent asks that I reconsider the portion of the Interim Decision in which I declined to dismiss certain allegations of the Application for failure to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

6Rule 25 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure for Transitional Applications provides that any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal.

7The respondent argues that the portion of the Interim Decision that is the subject of its Request for Reconsideration is a “final decision” that may be the subject matter of a reconsideration application.

Is the aspect of 2010 HRTO 883 that the respondent identifies for reconsideration a final decision?

8The Tribunal, in several cases that I find persuasive, has examined this issue. With respect to the continued allegations that the Interim Decision did not dismiss, I adopt the Tribunal’s analysis in Latanville v. Gilbert Steel, 2009 HRTO 1168. As in Latanville, no conclusive findings regarding the continued allegations were made, rather I only decided the threshold issue of whether those allegations would or would not be dismissed on a preliminary basis. It remains to be decided after hearing the respondent’s response to these allegations whether, on a balance of probabilities, the respondent discriminated against the applicant as alleged.

9There has been no final decision on the aspect of the Application that the respondent asks me to reconsider. Thus the respondent’s reconsideration request is premature. See also Alabi v. Cancer Care Ontario, 2010 HRTO 478 (the only aspect of the Interim Decision qualifying for reconsideration as a final decision was the removal of an individual respondent); Humphries v. General Motors of Canada, 2010 HRTO 894 (an Interim Decision that narrowed the scope of an Application is not a final decision); and Campbell v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 423 (the reconsideration process is available for allegations that are disposed of in an Interim Decision).

10The Request for Reconsideration is denied.