HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Victoria Jacques
Applicant
-and-
The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company
Respondent
INTERIM Decision
Adjudicator: David Muir
Date: May 4, 2012
Citation: 2012 HRTO 891
Indexed as: Jacques v. The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company
[1] This is an Application filed pursuant to section 34 of section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”).
[2] In an Interim Decision dated March 9, 2012, I determined that the Application could proceed further to a hearing because I was not satisfied that the Application had no reasonable prospect of success.
[3] In correspondence dated April 4, 2012 the respondent has requested a reconsideration of the Interim Decision. The basis for the request is that the Interim Decision appears to indicate that “the legislative and factual basis” for its position may have been misunderstood. The respondent states that in the Interim Decision I state that no distinction is made between two categories of drivers when in fact some distinctions are made between them. The respondent argues that given that these matters went to the heart of the reasons for the rejection of their Request to dismiss the Application the Interim Decision should be reconsidered.
[4] Section 45.7 of the Code provides for the reconsideration of Tribunal’s decisions:
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.
[5] Pursuant to this provision the Tribunal has made Rules applicable to such requests. Rule 26 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provides that any party may request reconsidereartion of a final decision of the Tribunal within 30 days for the date of the decision. Rule 26.5 sets out the factors that go to the exercise of the Tribunal’s discretion in this regard:
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 reconsideeration 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.
[6] I appreciate the point made by the respondent; however, in my view its concern goes more to the manner in which parts of my reasons were worded than to what I concluded was the ultimate reason for my not accepting that the Application had no reasonable prospect of success.
[7] However, more important than any consideration of the factors set out in Rule 26.5 that might justify the reconsideration of the Interim Decision is the fact that the Interim Decision is not a final decision. The Rule only provides for the reconsideration of final decisions.
[8] To be final within the meaning of the Rule requires that the Decision has finally disposed of some or all of the central issues in an application. See amongst other Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34. The conclusions I came to in the Interim Decision in question is not that the Application was successful in whole or in part, or that it was likely to be successful, but only that I was not satisfied that it had no reasonable prospect of success. In my view that is clearly not a final decision within the meaning of the Rule.
[9] The request for reconsideration is dismissed.
[10] I am not seized of this case.
Dated at Toronto, this 4th day of May, 2012.
“signed by”
David Muir
Vice-chair