Free v. Magnetawan (Municipality), 2016 HRTO 902

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

David Free

Applicant

-and-

Municipality of Magnetawan and Richard Smith

Respondents

A N D B E T W E E N:

David Free

Applicant

-and-

Municipality of Magnetawan and Jeffery Rochwerg

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: July 8, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 902

Indexed as: Free v. Magnetawan (Municipality)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

David Free, Applicant

Self-represented

1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request that the Tribunal reconsider its previous Interim Decisions in this matter.

2The applicant requested a reconsideration of Interim Decision 2016 HRTO 715. In that Interim Decision I denied the applicant’s request for an adjournment. However, I granted his adjournment request upon his submission of proper medical documentation in Interim Decision 2016 HRTO 806. The applicant takes issue with my direction that two additional issues be addressed at the preliminary hearing scheduled in his case. He also takes issue with my direction that two of the Applications he filed be addressed in the same preliminary hearing.

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:

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.

5The Interim Decision challenged by the applicant is not a final decision which can be subject to a Request for Reconsideration. The Interim Decision does not disposes of some or all of the central issues in the complaint as between the parties. Not being final decision, the Interim Decision cannot be the subject of a reconsideration request. See Galuego v. Kensington Health Centre, 2009 HRTO 429.

ORDER

6For the above reasons, the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration is dismissed. The preliminary hearing will proceed as scheduled and address the issues set out in the Tribunal’s March 9, 2016 Case Assessment Direction in File No. 2010-04514-I as well as my Interim Decision 2016 HRTO 715.

7I am not seized of these Applications.