HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Anton Bonnici on behalf of Emy Bonnici
Applicant
-and-
Loblaws Inc.
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel
Indexed as: Bonnici v. Loblaws Inc.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Anton Bonnici on behalf of Emy Bonnici, Applicants
Self-represented
1This Application is currently being scheduled for a mediation. This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request that the Tribunal reconsider its most recent Interim Decision, 2016 HRTO 905.
2In that Interim Decision I denied the applicant’s request to amend the Application to add allegations that were dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success in Interim Decision, 2015 HRTO 1701 at paras. 20-26.
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.
5The Interim Decision challenged by the applicant is not a final decision which can be subject to a Request for Reconsideration. The Interim Decision does not disposes of some or all of the central issues in the complaint as between the parties. It simply denies the applicant’s request to add allegations to his Application that have already been dismissed. Not being final decision, the Interim Decision cannot be the subject of a reconsideration request. See Galuego v. Kensington Health Centre, 2009 HRTO 429.
Order
6For the reasons set out above, the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 16th day of August, 2016.
“Signed By”
Jo-Anne Pickel
Vice-chair