Anne Marsden v. Board of Directors of the Halton Condominium Corporation No. 41 and The Active Group, 2013 HRTO 1844

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Anne Marsden

Applicant

-and-

Board of Directors of the Halton Condominium Corporation No. 41 and The Active Group

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: November 1, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1844

Indexed as: Marsden v. Board of Directors of the Halton Condominium Corporation No. 41

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Anne Marsden, Applicant

Self-represented

1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request that the Tribunal reconsider its October 11, 2013 Interim Decision, 2013 HRTO 1727, in this matter.

2Rule 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.

3In 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.

4The Tribunal’s October 11, 2013 Interim Decision is not a final decision as it does not deprive the applicant of “any prospect of a remedy” as against the respondents and does not dispose of the entirety of the Application. 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 429.

5For these reasons the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.