Darren John v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services (OPP), 2017 HRTO 1395

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Darren John

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services (OPP)

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: October 20, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 1395

Indexed as: John v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Darren John, Applicant

Self-represented

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of the Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code") on November 23, 2016.

2The applicant has made a Request for Reconsideration (Request) of my Case Assessment Direction ("CAD") issued on October 18, 2017 denying, with reasons to follow, several requests of the applicant. The respondent was not asked to respond to the Request.

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.

5Having considered these authorities and the context in which the issue arises, I have concluded that the CAD is not a final decision. I find that it does not deprive the applicant of "any prospect of a remedy" as against the respondent 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 179. For these reasons the Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.