Lyla Mahmoudi v. The Regional Municipality of York Police Services, 2012 HRTO 39

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Lyla Mahmoudi

Applicant

-and-

The Regional Municipality of York Police Services, Kimberly Pearce and Peter Heard

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: January 9, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 39 Indexed as: Mahmoudi v. The Regional Municipality of York Police Services

1This Reconsideration Decision concerns an Application filed by the applicant on August 9, 2010, alleging discrimination in the provision of services on the basis of race, colour and place of origin, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The respondents have made a request for reconsideration of that portion of my Interim Decision, 2011 HRTO 1710, in which I declined to defer the Application pending the conclusion of the applicant’s civil claim which has also been brought against the respondents.

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.

4In Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34, the Tribunal considered at length the question of when a decision should be considered final for the purposes of the reconsideration power. After carefully considering the policy issues and the relevant authorities the Tribunal concluded:

As a general principle, having regard to the approach taken in other forums as well as the above discussion, it is reasonable to view a “final decision” as one that disposes of some or all of the central issues in the complaint as between the parties. This general principle will take on a more precise shape as the Tribunal applies it to cases before it.

5Having considered these authorities and the context in which the issue arises, I have concluded that the Decision is not a final one. I find that it does not deprive the applicant of “any prospect of a remedy” as against the respondent[s] and does not dispose of the entirety of the complaint. Not being a final decision, it cannot, at this time, be the subject of a reconsideration request. See: Galuego v. Kensington Health Centre, 2009 HRTO 49. For these reasons the Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.

6Under Rule 16, the Tribunal has the discretion to defer a matter on its own motion. The respondents state that since filing their Request for Order in November 2010, they have recently contacted the applicant’s counsel in order to arrange examinations for discovery. This does not suggest that the civil proceeding is sufficiently advanced as to constitute a basis for the Tribunal to exercise its discretion to defer this matter.

7I am not seized.