CITATION: Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board v. Fair, 2015 ONSC 220
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO: 476/13 JR
DATE: 20150112
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
MATLOW, WHITAKER and ELLIES JJ.
B E T W E E N:
HAMILTON WENTWORTH DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
Applicant
- and -
SHARON FAIR, HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO and KAYE JOACHIM
Respondents
- and -
ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Respondents
Counsel:
Roy Filion & Mark Zega, for the Applicant
Ed Canning, Wade Poziomka & Jennifer Zdriluk, for the Respondent, Sharon Fair
Margaret Leighton, for the Respondent, Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
Anthony Griffin & Margaret Flynn, for the Respondent, Ontario Human Rights Commission
Motion made in writing.
BY THE COURT:
[1] On February 27 and March 20, 2014, we heard an application for judicial review brought by the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board (the “Board”) in which the Board sought judgment setting aside two decisions of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (the “Tribunal”). By those decisions the Tribunal awarded relief in favour of Sharon Fair, against the Board.
[2] On September 19, 2014, we dismissed the application for judicial review with written reasons. Subsequently, the Board obtained leave to appeal our judgment to the Court of Appeal and that appeal is now pending.
[3] We now have a motion in writing brought by Sharon Fair in which she seeks an order amending our earlier written reasons on the ground that they contain ”clerical errors”. Her notice of motion invokes rules 57.01 and 59.06 (1).
[4] We also have responding material from counsel for the Board supporting the Board’s position that we should not grant the motion.
[5] It is noteworthy that Sharon Fair understandably does not ask that we interfere with our judgment. She asks that we amend only our reasons.
[6] In our view, neither of the rules relied on by Sharon Fair confers jurisdiction on us to amend our reasons. Nevertheless, it may be that we do have such jurisdiction to do so.
[7] However, even if we do have such jurisdiction, it is our view that we should not exercise our discretion by amending our reasons. It would be unseemly if we were to do so and appear to be attempting to preserve our judgment by now correcting any clerical errors that may appear. Justice would be better served if the Court of Appeal, in its consideration of the pending appeal, were left to determine whether or not we made any such errors and, if we did, what the consequences should be.
[8] The motion is, therefore, dismissed. Any issues of costs are left to be determined by the Court of Appeal.
Matlow J.
Whitaker J.
Ellies J.
Date: January 12, 2015
CITATION: Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board v. Fair, 2015 ONSC 220
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO: 476/13 JR
DATE: 20150112
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
MATLOW, ELLIES and WHITAKER JJ.
BETWEEN:
HAMILTON-WENTWORTH DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
Applicant
- and -
SHARON FAIR, HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO and KAYE JOACHIM
Respondents
- and -
ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Respondent
REASONS FOR DECISION
Matlow, Whitaker and Ellies, J.J.
Released: January 12, 2015