HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
David Armstrong
Applicant
-and-
Workplace Safety and Insurance Board and Chris Madden
Respondents
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson
Indexed as: Armstrong v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
David Armstrong, Applicant
Self-represented
1On April 12, 2016, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of an Interim Decision in this matter, 2016 HRTO 256, dated February 25, 2016 (the “Interim Decision”). In the Interim Decision, the Tribunal denied the applicant’s request for production of documents and gave directions regarding the applicant’s disclosure obligations and scheduling the hearing in this matter.
2The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed for the following reasons.
3The circumstances in which Reconsideration may be granted are set out in Rule 26.5:
26.5 A Request for Reconsideration will not be granted unless the Tribunal is satisfied that:
(a) there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier; or
(b) the party seeking Reconsideration was entitled to but, through no fault of its own, did not receive notice of the proceeding or a hearing; or
(c) the decision or order which is the subject of the Reconsideration request is in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure and the proposed Reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance; or
(d) other factors exist that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.
4The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration begins with the following statements:
Decisions of the Tribunal are generally considered final and are not subject to appeal. However, parties may request that the Tribunal reconsider a final decision it has made. Reconsideration is a discretionary remedy; there is no right to have a decision reconsidered by the Tribunal. Generally, the Tribunal will only reconsider a decision where it finds that there are compelling and extraordinary circumstances for doing so and where these circumstances outweigh the public interest in finality of orders and decisions.
Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of its case.
Analysis and Decision
5Rule 26 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provides that any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within 30 days of the date of the decision. An Interim Decision may be considered “final” for the purpose of a reconsideration request if it disposes of some or all of the central issues in an application. See Matthews v. Toronto Police Service, 2011 HRTO 354. In this case, the decision dismissing the applicant’s request for production of documents does not finally dispose of any of the central issues in the Application and is clearly not final. Consequently, the Interim Decision is not subject to Reconsideration.
6I note that the hearing of this matter is scheduled for May 24, 2016. Amongst other things, the applicant in the Request for Reconsideration stated that provision had not been made for him to submit new evidence beyond the deadlines for disclosure under Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. If the applicant has additional evidence or witnesses he wishes to submit, he may file a Request for an Order During Proceedings to seek permission to do so.
Order
7The Request for Reconsideration is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 9th day of May, 2016.
“signed by”
Douglas Sanderson
Vice-chair