Thomas v. IATSE Local 461, 2013 HRTO 303

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Rose Marie Thomas

Applicant

-and-

IATSE Local 461, Shaw Festival Foundation, Domenico Marcone, William Talbot, Margaret Molokach, Douglas Ledingham, David Edwards, Archie MacKenzie, and Don Finlayson

Respondents

Interim decision

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty

Date: February 22, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 303

Indexed as: Thomas v. IATSE Local 461

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration of my Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated January 14, 2013 and to provide further direction regarding the proceeding.

Request for Reconsideration

2The respondents have yet not responded to the applicant’s Request and, in the circumstances, it is not necessary for them to do so.

3On January 14, 2013, I issued a CAD confirming an oral ruling I had given at the hearing on November 30, 2012. I declined to issue an order waiving the implied undertaking regarding certain documents the applicant wished to use in a proceeding before privacy commissioners.

4The applicant has now asked that I reconsider this direction. Importantly, the Tribunal’s Rules indicate that a party “may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal” (see Rule 26.1, emphasis added). Additionally, reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to re-litigate issues that have been determined. The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration states, in part:

Decisions of the Tribunal are generally considered final and are not subject to appeal. However, parties may request that the Tribunal reconsider a final decision it has made. Reconsideration is a discretionary remedy; there is no right to have a decision reconsidered by the Tribunal. Generally, the Tribunal will only reconsider a decision where it finds that there are compelling and extraordinary circumstances for doing so and where these circumstances outweigh the public interest in finality of orders and decisions.

5The applicant’s Request concerns a preliminary or procedural direction in which I refused to order that the implied undertaking rule be waived. This is not a final decision within the meaning of the Tribunal’s Rules, Practice Direction on Reconsideration or jurisprudence and it is not properly the subject of a request for Reconsideration. The Request is dismissed on this basis.

Directions regarding the proceeding

6The applicant has now repeatedly sought reconsideration of preliminary or procedural issues: see also 2012 HRTO 1993. She has also raised a series of preliminary procedural issues, including multiple requests to add parties at advanced stages of the proceeding. To date, the Tribunal has issued at least four Interim Decisions and eight CADs in this matter. Repeated challenges to previous preliminary rulings risk adding unnecessary expense and delay to the proceedings and are inconsistent with the Tribunal’s mandate to resolve applications in as fair, just and expeditious a manner as possible.

7In the circumstances, the respondents need not respond to any further Requests filed by the applicant unless expressly directed to do so by the Tribunal.

8Further, pursuant to Rules 1.5 to 1.7 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, I may determine that further Requests filed by the applicant will not be dealt with preliminarily and will be addressed only as part of my final determination of this matter.

Summary of Orders and Directions

9The Request for Reconsideration is denied.

10The respondents need not respond to any further Requests filed by the applicant unless they are explicitly directed to do so by the Tribunal.

11I may determine that further Requests filed by the applicant will not be dealt with preliminarily and will be addressed only as part of my final determination of this matter.