HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Andrew Sprague Applicant
-and-
Beck Taxi Limited Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Josée Bouchard
Indexed as: Sprague v. Beck Taxi Inc.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Andrew Sprague, Applicant
Self-represented
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to goods, services and facilities because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). A hearing in respect of this Application is scheduled for June 10, 2016 in Toronto.
2The applicant has requested reconsideration of my Interim Decision 2016 HRTO 575 refusing the applicant’s request for an Order to compel disclosure from non-parties.
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, at paragraph 41:
(…) 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.
5Having considered these authorities and the context in which the request arises, I have concluded that the Interim Decision is not a final one. I find that it does not deprive the applicant of “any prospect of a remedy” as against the respondent and does not dispose of the entirety of the complaint. Not being a final decision, it cannot, at this time, be the subject of a reconsideration request. For these reasons the Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 4th day of May, 2016.
“signed by”
Josée Bouchard
Vice-chair