Williams v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2016 HRTO 131

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Donald Williams

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Transit Commission

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: January 29, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 131

Indexed as: Williams v. Toronto Transit Commission

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Donald Williams, Applicant

Self-represented

1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request that I reconsider my Reconsideration Decision, 2016 HRTO 73, in which denied his request that I reconsider two previous Interim Decisions. It also directs the applicant to comply with Rule 16.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (“Rules”) which requires him to file with the Tribunal copies of any document he intends to rely upon at the hearing.

Request for REconsideration

2In my Reconsidertation Decision, I denied the applicant’s prior Request for Reconsideration on the basis that reconsideration was not available with respect to my Interim Decisions as they were not “final decisions” within the meaning of Rule 26.1 of the Tribunal’s Rule. I also noted that, in any event, the applicant had not provided any information that would cause me to reconsider the Interim Decisions at issue.

3The applicant’s second Request for Reconsideration is in effect an attempt to have me reconsider my two previous Interim Decisions. Therefore, I deny it for the same reasons I denied his first Request for Reconsideration. Further, in my view, nothing in the applicant’s latest Request for Reconsideration would cause me to reconsider my Interim Decisions or my Reconsideration Decision.

Applicant’s Disclosure of Documents

4The applicant filed a witness statement in response to my direction to do so. I note that his witness statement raises allegations and events that fall outside the scope of this Application. This Application has a very long history at the Tribunal. It was filed more than 5 years ago. It was deferred for a period of time and then reactivated. It was also the subject of a preliminary hearing.

5As set out in my previous Interim Decisions in this case, the issues raised by the case are narrow in scope and they are the following:

a. whether the respondent discriminated and/or reprised against the applicant by denying him overtime opportunities sometime between January 2, 2010 and June 28, 2010.

b. whether the respondent discriminated and/or reprised against the applicant on June 19, 2010 by detailing him to do work he “does not do”.

6The applicant will be permitted provide testimony in relation to the above allegations and time frames only.

7In his witness statement, the applicant states that he will rely upon all of the documents that were filed so far in this proceeding. It is not sufficient for the applicant to make such a broad statement. As noted above, this proceeding has a lengthy history and many documents have been filed with the Tribunal in this case. The applicant must clearly identify which documents he intends to rely upon at the hearing, file a copy of these documents with the Tribunal, and deliver a copy of these documents to the respondent.

Order and direction

8The applicant’s Request for Reconsideration is denied.

9No later than 7 days from the date of this Decision, the applicant must file with the Tribunal copies of the documents he intends to rely upon at the hearing and deliver a copy of these documents to the respondent. The applicant will not be permitted to rely upon any documents he has not filed within 7 days of the date of this Decision.