Moore v. Ferro & Company, 2014 HRTO 62

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Philton Moore Applicant

-and-

Ferro & Company, Lou Ferro and Ellen Helden Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart Date: January 15, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 62 Indexed as: Moore v. Ferro & Company

1This Decision addresses a Request for Reconsideration filed by the applicant in relation to the Tribunal’s Decision 2013 HRTO 2106, dated December 20, 2013, which allowed the respondents’ request to file an amended Response.

2In his submissions in support of the Request for Reconsideration, the applicant requests reconsideration by another Vice-chair of the Tribunal. As stated by the Divisional Court in Landau v. Ontario (Minister of Finance), 2012 ONSC 6926 at para. 16, “the mere fact that an adjudicator determines a request for reconsideration of his or her own decision does not, in and of itself, create a reasonable apprehension of bias in the context of this legislative scheme”. The test for reasonable apprehension of bias, as summarized in the Landau decision, is “whether an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically – and having thought the matter through – would conclude that it is more likely than not that the decision-maker, whether consciously or unconsciously, would not decide the matter fairly”. While I appreciate that the applicant does not agree with my Decision, the applicant does not specifically allege any reasonable apprehension of bias and I do not see anything in the Decision that would give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias that would disqualify me from determining his reconsideration request.

3Rule 26.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provides that reconsideration may be requested in relation to a “final decision” of the Tribunal. As stated in Sigrist and Carson, 2008 HRTO 34 at para. 41, a “final decision” is one that disposes of some or all of the central issues in the Application as between the parties.

4The Decision dated December 20, 2013 is an interim, not a final, decision. It did not dispose of any of the central issues in the Application. Rather, it merely permitted the respondents to amend their Response. None of the issues raised in the Application have yet been disposed of.

5As a result, as the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration is not made in respect of a final decision of the Tribunal, his Request is denied.

6In addition, the Tribunal once again finds itself in the position of having to address the communications of the applicant and respondent counsel in this matter. Information about without prejudice settlement discussions between the parties should not be shared or filed with the Tribunal, unless as part of an established mediation process. The Tribunal will disregard any material filed by the parties regarding without prejudice settlement discussions.

7Further, the tone of the parties’ communications remains an issue. The Tribunal is not impressed with the continuing back and forth between the parties. The only communications that should be filed with the Tribunal should be where the parties either are requesting the Tribunal to take some specific action or are responding to such a request made by the opposing party; and in such cases, the parties’ communications should be restricted only to making or responding to the request without side commentary and in a civil manner.

ORDER

8For the foregoing reasons, the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration is denied.