Younano v. Ontario (Ministry of Finance), 2017 HRTO 1392

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Melissa Younano

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario

as represented by the Ministry of Finance

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: October 19, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 1392

Indexed as: Younano v. Ontario(Ministry of Finance)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Melissa Younano, Applicant

Michael Anasakta

Counsel

1The applicant requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision to grant an extension of time to the respondent to respond to a Request for Order During Proceedings filed by the applicant.

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. This general principle will take on a more precise shape as the Tribunal applies it to cases before it.

4The procedural decision challenged by the applicant is not a final decision which can be subject to a Request for Reconsideration. The decision on the extension of time request does not dispose 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

5For the above reasons, the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.

6I am not seized of this Application.