Robertson v. Ontario (Health and Long-Term Care), 2012 HRTO 1343

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

James Robertson Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care and Carol Lambie Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist Date: July 9, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1343 Indexed as: Robertson v. Ontario (Health and Long-Term Care)

1This is an Application filed on November 3, 2011 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the "Code"). The Application alleges discrimination in employment, services and membership in a vocational association on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, disability and reprisal.

2In his Application the applicant indicates that he was involved in a proceeding before the Ontario Review Board ("ORB") that was still in progress and which involved facts raised in his Application. Accordingly, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the Application pending the resolution of the applicant's proceedings before the ORB. The Tribunal requested written submissions from the parties as to whether the Application should be deferred or not.

3The Tribunal received submissions from the applicant, the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care. In an Interim Decision dated May 9, 2012, 2012 HRTO 942, the Tribunal determined that some the issues raised in the Application were issues raised by the applicant in his proceeding before the ORB. The Tribunal further determined that while the applicant's proceeding before the ORB was over the applicant had appealed the ORB's decision to the Court of Appeal for Ontario and that in so doing the applicant was asking the Court of Appeal to consider some of the same subject matter that forms part of his Application. The Tribunal found that under these circumstances it would not be just, fair or expeditious to proceed with the Application and decided that the Application would be deferred pending resolution of the applicant's court appeal.

4The applicant has provided a response to the Tribunal's May 9, 2012 Interim Decision, describing his response as a "Form 26 rebuttal to the respondents misleading and prejudicial submissions". In his response the applicant submits that deferral will only prolong the discrimination he and others have faced. The applicant details some of his concerns as to how he and others have been treated by the respondents. The applicant also identifies a number of legal and other disputes he has had with the respondents as well as some of the reasons he disagrees with the respondents' submissions about deferring his Application.

5I am not clear about the applicant's reference to "Form 26". The Tribunal's Form 26 is used when a party wishes to request that the Tribunal hold a summary hearing. It is not clear from the applicant's submissions that this is what the applicant is requesting or that this request makes sense, under the circumstances.

6It is possible that the applicant is seeking a reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision pursuant to Rule 26 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure although this is far from clear. To the extent that the applicant may be seeking reconsideration, I would indicate that under Rule 26.1, only "final" decisions made by the Tribunal qualify for a reconsideration request. The Tribunal has determined that an interim decision made by the Tribunal may be a "final" decision where it disposes of some or all of the central issues in an application (see Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34). However, the Tribunal's May 9, 2012 Interim Decision is not a "final" decision in that it does not dispose of some or all of the central issues. It only defers the Application. Accordingly, it is not a decision that the applicant can asked to be reconsidered.

7I am not seized of this matter