Williams v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2016 HRTO 73

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 18, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 73

Indexed as: Williams v. Toronto Transit Commission

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Donald Williams, Applicant

Self-represented

1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request that the Tribunal reconsider two of its Interim Decisions, 2015 HRTO 1507 and 2015 HRTO 1726. It also directs the applicant to comply with the pre-hearing filing requirements set out in Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (“Rules”).

Request for REconsideration

2Rule 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.

3In 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.

4The two Interim Decisions in question address productions orders filed by the parties and the applicant’s request that the Tribunal provide him with a transcript of the upcoming hearing. These decisions are not final decisions, as they did not deprive the applicant of “any prospect of a remedy” as against the respondents and do not dispose of the entirety of the Application. Not being final decisions, these decisions cannot be the subject of a reconsideration request. See Galuego v. Kensington Health Centre, 2009 HRTO 429.

5I note further that, in any event, the applicant has not provided any information that would cause me to reconsider the Interim Decisions cited above.

6For these reasons the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.

Applicant’s Pre-hearing filing Obligations

7The applicant has not met the requirements under Rules 16 and 17 to deliver to the respondent and file with the Tribunal a witness list, witness statements, and copies of documents he intends to rely upon at the hearing.

8The Notice of Confirmation of Hearing in this matter set January 11, 2016 as the date by which each party had to comply with their obligations under Rules 16 and 17. The applicant has so far failed to file the required documentation with the Tribunal. As set below, there are serious consequences for the case if the parties do not comply with the disclosure obligations set out in Rules 16 and 17.

9In C.D. v. Wal-Mart Canada, 2010 HRTO 426, the Tribunal explained, at para. 7:

The exchange of documents (Rule 16) and witness statements (Rule 17) 45 days prior to the hearing is a critical part of the Tribunal’s process. It ensures that each party fully understands the other side’s case and enables the Tribunal to make Case Assessment Directions to structure the hearing. In appropriate cases, adoption of the witness statements may take the place of examination-in-chief of the witness. Witness statements should therefore be detailed and set out the particular evidence that the witness will give, rather than just general topics. A witness statement should be filed for each witness, including an applicant or individual respondent. Where the Application or Response itself makes clear the proposed testimony, the witness statement may simply confirm that the summary of facts in the Application or Response is complete and reflects the evidence that will be given by the applicant or individual respondent.

10The applicant must make the required disclosure immediately. Specifically, he must deliver to the respondent and file with the Tribunal a witness list, witness statements, and copies of documents he intends to rely upon at the hearing. If the applicant has no documents that he intends to rely upon at the hearing other than the documents filed by the respondent, he must advise the Tribunal of this in writing with a copy to the respondent. Also, the applicant is required to submit a witness statement for himself if he is the only witness who will testify in support of the Application at the hearing. In his witness statement, the applicant must provide a detailed statement of the testimony he intends to provide into the issue to be dealt with at the hearing – that is, his allegation that the respondent violated the Code by denying him overtime opportunities and detailing him to do work he “does not do” sometime between January 2, 2010 to June 28, 2010.

Order and direction

11The applicant’s Request for Reconsideration is denied.

12The Tribunal directs the applicant to file the materials required under Rules 16 and 17 no later than 7 days from the date of this Decision. The applicant will not be permitted to rely upon any documents he has not filed within 7 days of the date of this Decision. If he does not file a witness statement within 7 days of the date of this Decision, he will be strictly limited to providing testimony in relation to the relevant paragraphs of his Application that address the issue being dealt with at the hearing.