HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Robert Sells
Applicant
-and-
Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board and Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Alison Renton
Date: March 28, 2012
Citation: 2012 HRTO 645
Indexed as: Sells v. Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board
[1] This file was scheduled for a Summary Hearing by conference call on March 8, 2012 pursuant to a Case Assessment Direction dated October 27, 2011 (“the CAD”) and a Notice of Summary Hearing on December 9, 2011 (“the Notice”).
[2] By Interim Decision dated March 8, 2012 (“the March Interim Decision”), the Tribunal cancelled the Summary Hearing to accommodate the applicant’s request to attend the Summary Hearing in person. At para. 8 of the March Interim Decision, the Tribunal stated that it would issue a new Notice of Summary Hearing to the parties converting the telephone Summary Hearing to an in-person Summary Hearing and giving the respondents the option of participating by conference call or in-person.
[3] Subsequent to the issuance of the March Interim Decision, the respondent Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario (“the union”) sent a letter dated March 8, 2012 to the Tribunal, and on which the other parties were copied. In that letter, the union reiterated “the Federation’s strenuous objection to the [applicant’s] requested accommodation” and requested that the Tribunal reconsider its decision to schedule an in-person hearing. The union submits that the applicant has:
never, to its knowledge, ever “received nor articulated a need for accommodation under the Code [sic] in relation to the referenced hearing impairment, including, but not limited to accommodations in respect of his ability to use the telephone”; and,
failed to provide information that would support the conclusion that the applicant cannot participate equally in the Summary Hearing by way of teleconference.
[4] The union submits that if the Summary Hearing is conducted in-person, the union takes the position that it must attend in-person at the Tribunal in order to protect its rights as a party to participate fully in the proceeding. It submits that it should not be put to the expense of attending at an in-person Summary Hearing since the applicant’s request for accommodation does not appear to be warranted.
[5] Neither the applicant nor the respondent Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board has responded to the union’s March 8, 2012 letter.
[6] Although the union has requested that the Tribunal “reconsider” its decision, the union has not filed a Form 20, Request for Reconsideration. Rule 26.1 sets out that a party can request reconsideration of a final decision and the Tribunal has reiterated, in a number of decisions, that a party can only request that a final decision be reconsidered. See, for example, McLennon v. York University, [2012 HRTO 102](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2012/102). Since the Tribunal issued an interim decision cancelling the Summary Hearing and converting it, at least for the applicant, to an in-person Summary Hearing, the union does not meet the threshold requirements for reconsideration.
[7] Further, the union’s submissions do not change the conclusion that the Tribunal reached in its March Interim Decision. The Tribunal has accepted the applicant’s request for accommodation and has stated, as summarized in para. 2 above, that it will issue another Notice of Summary Hearing scheduling an in-person Summary Hearing and giving the respondents to option of participating in-person or by conference call with call in instructions.
[8] A Summary Hearing is a hearing at which legal submissions are made, but no evidence is required. The Tribunal has directed the applicant to proceed first at the Summary Hearing. As the Tribunal set out in the CAD at para. 3:
Details about the nature of a summary hearing were set out as follows in Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994, at paras. 8 and 9:
In some cases, the issue at the summary hearing may be whether, assuming all the allegations in the application to be true, it has a reasonable prospect of success. In these cases, the focus will generally be on the legal analysis and whether what the applicant alleges may be reasonably considered to amount to a Code violation.
In other cases the focus of the summary hearing may be on whether there is a reasonable prospect that the applicant can prove, on a balance of probabilities, that his or her Code rights were violated. Often, such cases will deal with whether the applicant can show a link between an event and the grounds upon which he or she makes the claim. The issue will be whether there is a reasonable prospect that evidence the applicant has or that is reasonably available to him or her can show a link between the event and the alleged prohibited ground.
[9] The union will have the option, as with the respondent Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board, to attend the Summary Hearing in-person or by teleconference.
Dated at Toronto, this 28th day of March, 2012.
“Signed by”
Alison Renton
Vice-chair