HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Darrell Jordan Hicks

Applicant

-and-

Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: March 11, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 302

Indexed as: Hicks v. Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability.

2The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration (Form 20) of my Case Assessment Direction issued to the parties on March 2, 2015 making various directions with respect to production of documents.

[4] Rule 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)](https://www.minicounsel.ca/scj/1994/10578), 19 O.R. (3d) 371.

[5] In Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, [2008 HRTO 34](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2008/34), 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.

[6] Having considered these authorities and the context in which the issue arises, I have concluded that the CAD is not a final determination. I find that it does not deprive the applicant of “any prospect of a remedy” as against the respondent and does not dispose of any part of the Application let alone the entirety of it. Not being a final decision, it cannot be the subject of a reconsideration request. See Galuego v. Kensington Health Centre, [2009 HRTO 429](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2009/429). For these reasons the Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.