Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Robyrt Regan
Applicant
-and-
Chappell Partners LLP and Ross Anderson
Respondents
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren
Indexed as: Regan v. Chappell Partners LLP
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Robyrt Regan, Applicant
Self-represented
Chappell Partners LLP and Ross Anderson, Respondents
Laura Cassiani, Counsel
Introduction
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of family status and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").
2On October 13, 2016, the respondents filed a Request for Dismissal of the Application on the basis that it was barred under section 34(11) of the Code because the applicant had filed a Statement of Claim which was based on the same facts as those alleged in the Application and in which the applicant plead that the respondents' alleged activities were a breach of the Code.
3In response to the Request, the applicant filed an Amended Statement of Claim in which all references to alleged breaches of the Code had been struck. In addition, the Amended Statement of Claim contained a paragraph stating that the applicant was not seeking any damages in the civil action for any breaches of the Code.
4On December 9, 2015, Tribunal issued Interim Decision 2015 HRTO 1660 which found that since the Statement of Claim has been amended there was no overlap in the allegations between the Statement of Claim and the Application. The Tribunal determined that the Application was not barred by section 34(11).
5On January 8, 2016, the respondents filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Interim Decision 2015 HRTO 1660 and made a renewed Request to Dismiss the Application.
6The Request to Dismiss the Application was addressed by the Tribunal in a separate decision 2016 HRTO 677.
Analysis and Decision
7Rule 26.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure provides that a party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal.
8In 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 reconsiderations under Rule 26.1. 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.
9I have concluded that the Tribunal's Interim Decision 2015 HRTO 1660 regarding the Request to Dismiss the Application is not a final one. I find that it does not dispose of any of the central issues raised in the Application. As a result of this determination, I find that the Tribunal cannot address the respondents' Request for Reconsideration. See Galuego v. Kensington Health Centre, 2009 HRTO 49.
10For these reasons the Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal's Interim Decision, 2015 HRTO 1660 is denied.
ORDER
11The respondents' Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal's Interim Decision, 2015 HRTO 1660 is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 18th day of May, 2016.
"signed by"
Laurie Letheren
Vice-chair```