Balloi v. Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning, 2012 HRTO 203

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Antonia Balloi

Applicant

-and-

Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Antonia Balloi

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: January 26, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 203

Indexed as: Balloi v. Humber College

1This Reconsideration Decision concerns two Applications filed by the applicant alleging discrimination in the provision of services on the basis of disability and reprisal, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant filed an Application against Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning on August 15, 2011, and a second Application against the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities on August 29, 2011.

2The applicant has made a request for reconsideration of two Interim Decisions issued by me. The first, 2011 HRTO 2177, denied her request for production of documents in Application 2011-09628-I as premature (the “production decision”). The second Interim Decision, 2012 HRTO 26, consolidated the two Applications (the “consolidation decision”).

3Rule 26.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure 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, and Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34.

4Having considered these authorities, it is clear that the determinations made in the two Interim Decisions are not final ones. I find that neither deprives the applicant of “any prospect of a remedy” as against the respondent[s] or disposes of the entirety of the complaint. Not being final decisions, they cannot, at this time, be the subject of a reconsideration request. See Galuego v. Kensington Health Centre, 2009 HRTO 179. On the basis of this reason alone, the Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.

5However, I would also dismiss on the basis that the applicant’s concerns, as stated in her Reconsideration Request, can be addressed by the Tribunal adjudicator and/or mediator assigned to her matter. Reconsideration is, therefore, unnecessary.

6With respect to the production decision, the applicant asserts that because she has a disability, she will need extra time to review the material provided by the respondents. I would note that the Notice of Hearing is usually sent to the parties several months in advance of the hearing. The respondents have an obligation under Rule 16 to produce all their arguably relevant documents 21 days after the Notice goes out, which means the applicant should have these documents many months prior to the hearing. Although the applicant states that she “will be asking for additional time to review documents” she may find that she is able to do the review within the time frame provided.

7In any event, the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provide that they “will be liberally interpreted and applied by the Tribunal to facilitate an accessible process and to ensure the fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits of the matters before it.” The adjudicator has the authority to extend time in the event a determination is made that the applicant requires more time to review or prepare materials.

8Nothing in the Tribunal’s decision on production precludes the respondents from voluntarily producing documents in advance. Indeed, some production may well facilitate mediation. However, this is a determination that the parties must make for themselves.

9With respect to my decision to consolidate, the applicant states that she will be disadvantaged by having to consider more material at one time, which is difficult for her because of her disability. I would note that this argument was raised in the applicant’s submissions on consolidation and specifically addressed in my Interim Decision:

I am mindful that the matters she raises are, indeed, complex. I am also mindful of the applicant’s assertion that she is more easily overwhelmed. However, the adjudicator assigned to hear these matters has the authority under the Code to give case directions to help reduce the complexity of the litigation. For example, the adjudicator can limit the number of issues and/or documents the parties have to deal with at any one time.

10Similarly, if the applicant believes that she requires more time to process material, she can request such additional time as she believes she requires.

11I am not seized.