Matthews v. Toronto Police Service, 2011 HRTO 354

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Paul Matthews, Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Service, Respondent

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: February 17, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 354 Indexed as: Matthews v. Toronto Police Service

1This Interim Decision addresses a Request for reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 2355, declining the respondent’s request for an order requiring the applicant to provide his consent to access his medical file to the respondent.

2Prior to filing its Response, the respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (Form 10) asking for an order requiring the applicant’s consent so that it could access the applicant’s medical file held by the respondent’s Medical Advisory Service (“MAS”). The respondent also sought an order extending the time for delivery of its Response.

3By Interim Decision dated November 29, 2010, the Tribunal declined to grant the order requiring the applicant to provide his consent, but extending the time to file the Response. On December 8, 2010, the respondent filed a Request for Reconsideration (Form 20). It did not file its Response within the timeframe set out in the Interim Decision.

4The Request for reconsideration is under section 45.7 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended, (the “Code”).

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.

5Rule 26 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provides any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within 30 days of the date of the decision. Rule 26.5 provides:

A Request for Reconsideration will not be granted unless the Tribunal is satisfied that:

a. there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier; or

b. the party seeking reconsideration was entitled to but, through no fault of its own, did not receive notice of the proceeding or a hearing; or

c. the decision or order which is the subject of the reconsideration request is in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance; or

d. other factors exist that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

6In Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34, the Tribunal determined that even an interim decision may be “final” for the purpose of a reconsideration request if it disposes of some or all of the central issues in an application.

7In this case, the decision declining the Request for what is essentially access to the applicant’s medical file prior to filing its Response is clearly not a “final” decision – and therefore not subject to reconsideration – because it does not finally dispose of any of the central issues in the Application. Once the respondent has filed its Response, it can make such further requests as it believes are necessary, at which point the Tribunal will be in a better position to assess whether early access to the medical information held by MAS is necessary to ensure the fair, just and expedidious resolution of the Application.

8The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed. The respondent must file its Response within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

9I am not seized of this matter.