Anthony Colella v. Toronto Catholic District School Board, 2010 HRTO 1286

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Anthony Colella Applicant

-and-

Toronto Catholic District School Board Respondent

-and-

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1280 Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl Date: June 4, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 1286 Indexed as: Colella v. Toronto Catholic District School Board

1This Application was received on June 29, 2009 under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the "Code"). The underlying complaint was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission on November 1, 2007 (the "complaint").

2The central allegation in the complaint is that the applicant has been the subject of discrimination in employment on the basis of disability. The allegations of discrimination refer to a number of events going back over 15 years.

3This Decision deals with a Request for Reconsideration (Form TR-8) of Interim Decision 2010 HRTO 1867 in which I narrowed the scope of the issues to be addressed at the hearing on the basis that a number of allegations made in the complaint were out of time.

4Section 45.7 of the "Code" provides as follows:

45.7 (1) Any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may request that the Tribunal reconsider its decision in accordance with the Tribunal rules.

(2) Upon request under subsection (1) or on its own motion, the Tribunal may reconsider its decision in accordance with its rules.

5The Tribunal's Rules provide that a reconsideration request may be made in respect of a final decision of the Tribunal. 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, 2008 HRTO 34, 2008 HRTO 34, at para. 41. None of the determinations made in the Interim Decision at issue is in any sense final, and on that basis the request for reconsideration ought to be dismissed. Although the scope of the issues raised was narrowed there was no final determination of the rights of either party.

6Accordingly, and for the reasons set out above, the Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.