TRIBUNAL DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE DE L’ONTARIO
BETWEEN :
D.H. in name of T.B.
Applicant
-and-
Eastern Ontario District School Board, Ontario Ministry of Education, Annie Sicard, Lyne Racine, Norma McDonald, and Kevin Gilmore
Respondents
Interim Decision
Adjudicator : Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: T.B. v. Eastern Ontario District School Board
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
D.H. in name of T.B. applicant
D.H., self-represented
Introduction
1On September 10, 2015 the Tribunal issued Interim Decision 2015 HRTO 1193 (the “Interim Decision”) denying the applicant’s Request for Interim Remedy.
2The applicant has requested reconsideration of the Interim Decision.
The law
3Rule 26.1 provides that a party may make a request to reconsider a final decision of the Tribunal within 30 days that the decision was issued.
4A 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.
5In 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. This general principle will take on a more precise shape as the Tribunal applies it to cases before it.
6Having considered these authorities and the context in which the issue arises, I have concluded that the Decision is not a final one. I find that it does not deprive the applicant of “any prospect of a remedy” as against the respondents 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. See Galuego v. Kensington Health Centre, 2009 HRTO 49. For these reasons the Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.
Recusal motion
7For the reasons explained in Interim Decision 2016 HRTO 176 and Reconsideration Decision 2016 HRTO 726, I am of the view that there is no reasonable apprehension of bias in this matter and I decline to recuse myself from this matter.
8The Tribunal will correct the title of proceedings in the Interim Decision to correct the initials of the child to T.B.
Next Steps
9The Tribunal acknowledges the various requests for orders that have been filed in this matter and will issue a Case Assessment Direction to the parties shortly.
10I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 28th day of June, 2016
“Signed By”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair