HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Ade Olumide
Applicant
-and-
Ottawa Police Services Board, City of Ottawa, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of the Attorney General, Court of Appeal for Ontario, Ontario Superior Court of Justice and Ontario Court of Justice
Respondents
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel
Indexed as: Olumide v. Ottawa Police Services Board
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Ade Olumide, Applicant
Self-represented
1The applicant requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) directing that the Tribunal schedule a summary hearing to determine whether it should dismiss the Application on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success. In the CAD, I also directed the parties to make submissions on whether the Tribunal should declare the applicant a vexatious litigant.
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 CAD in question is not a decision that is subject to reconsideration. Therefore, the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration is denied.
5I note that the applicant has filed a request for Interim Remedy (Form 16), a Request for a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry (Form 12) and a Request for Order During Proceedings (Form 10) on November 30, 2017. All of these will be addressed at the summary hearing once it is scheduled in the new year.
6In the CAD, I advised that the the parties are not required to file any documents in advance of the summary hearing, except that the respondents are permitted to file Responses to the Application. I indicated that, if the parties wished to file any further documentation. they were required to deliver copies to the Tribunal and the other parties no later than 5 weeks (35 days) after the date of the CAD.
7In the circumstances of this case, this direction is varied. The parties are not permitted to file any documentation for the summary hearing. As noted in the CAD, for the purposes of the summary hearing, the Tribunal must accept the applicant’s version of the background facts as true and provable. At the summary hearing, the applicant will be asked to tell the Tribunal what evidence he would be able to call in a merits hearing to establish that the respondent carried out the alleged actions in this case because of his race, colour and/or ethnic origin.
ORDER and directions
8For the above reasons, the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration is denied.
9The parties are not permitted to file any further documentation prior to the summary hearing except for the following: the respondents may file Responses to the Application and any parties may file a list of cases they intend to refer to in the summary hearing.
10The parties are not permitted to file any further Requests for Orders During Proceedings prior to the summary hearing.
11I am not seized of this Application.
Dated at Toronto, this 6th day of December, 2017.
“Signed by”
Jo-Anne Pickel
Vice-chair