Potomski v. Windsor (City), 2017 HRTO 1616

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

R.J. Potomski

Applicant

-and-

Corporation of the City of Windsor, Central Housing Registry – Windsor Essex County, Josephine Heuton, Miller Canfield LLP, David McNevin, and Amy Armstrong

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: December 5, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 1616

Indexed as: Potomski v. Windsor (City)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

R.J. Potomski, Applicant

Self-represented

1The applicant requests Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision of October 20, 2017, 2017 HRTO 1394 (the “Interim Decision”), dismissing his requests for Expedited Proceedings and for an Interim Remedy. The applicant also seeks Reconsideration of a Case Assessment Direction of October 20, 2017 (the “Case Assessment Direction”) that directed that a summary hearing be held in this matter.

2Rule 26 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provides that any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within 30 days of the date of the decision. An Interim Decision may be considered “final” for the purpose of a reconsideration request if it disposes of some or all of the central issues in an application. See Matthews v. Toronto Police Service, 2011 HRTO 354. The Tribunal has found that Interim Decisions dismissing requests for expedited proceedings and for interim remedies are not “final” decisions for the purposes of Rule 26. See: Wambach v. Canadian Soccer Association, 2014 HRTO 1761, and Scott v. Otter Creek Co-operative Homes Inc., 2013 HRTO 1484. The Interim Decision disposes of none of the central issues in this Application and therefore was not final for the purposes of Rule 26. Similarly, the Case Assessment Direction simply sets the matter down for a summary hearing and also disposes of none of the central issues. Consequently, neither the Interim Decision nor the Case Assessment Direction is subject to Reconsideration.

3The Request for Reconsideration is denied.

4I note that the applicant correctly noted that the prohibited ground of discrimination identified in the Interim Decision was “disability” when the ground selected in the Application is “reprisal”. This error is unfortunate, but is entirely irrelevant to the requests to expedite, for an interim remedy or for Reconsideration. The Tribunal shall issue a correction to the Interim Decision.