Mancebo-Munoz v. NCO Financial Services Inc., 2013 HRTO 1007

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Esther del Carmen Mancebo-Munoz Applicant

-and-

NCO Financial Services Inc. Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: June 5, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1007

Indexed as: Mancebo-Munoz v. NCO Financial Services Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Esther del Carmen Mancebo-Munoz, Applicant

Self-represented

NCO Financial Services Inc, Respondent

Randy Ai, Counsel

Introduction

1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request that the Tribunal reconsider its previous Interim Decisions in this matter.

2By letter dated May 31, 2013, the applicant requested a reconsideration of the two following Interim Decisions 2013 HRTO 974 addressing her request for anonymization, 2013 HRTO 862 addressing her request for an adjournment and 2013 HRTO 919 addressing her request to extend the deadline for disclosure of materials.

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 Interim Decisions cited above are not final decisions. I find that these decisions do not deprive the applicant of “any prospect of a remedy” as against the respondent and does not dispose 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 429.

6For these reasons the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.