Rill v. Kashruth Council of Canada, 2008 HRTO 314

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Warren Rill

Applicant

-and-

Kashruth Council of Canada, Mordichai Levin, Blake, Cassels and Graydon LLP and Joel Richler

Respondents

AND B E T W E E N:

Warren Rill

Applicant

-and-

Kashruth Council of Canada, Mordichai Levin, Meyer Feldman and Joel Richler

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: November 27, 2008

Citation: 2008 HRTO 314

Indexed as: Rill v. Kashruth Council of Canada

1This decision addresses requests for reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decisions dismissing the Applications in File No. T-0200-08 and File No. T-0241-08. These were both final decisions following a case resolution conference.

2On November 13, 2008 the applicant filed requests for reconsideration under section 45.7 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended, (the “Code”).

45.7 (1) Any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may request that the Tribunal reconsider its decision in accordance with the Tribunal rules.

(2) Upon request under subsection (1) or on its own motion, the Tribunal may reconsider its decision in accordance with its rules.

3The Tribunal’s Rules Governing Section 53(3) Applications provide that any party may request reconsideration of the case resolution conference adjudicator’s decision in accordance with the Rules of Procedure for Applications under the Human Rights Code Part IV of the Code (the “General Application Rules”). Rule 26.5 of the General Application Rules provides:

26.5 A Request for Reconsideration will not be granted unless the Tribunal is satisfied that:

a. there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier; or

b. the party seeking reconsideration was entitled to but, through no fault of its own, did not receive notice of the proceeding or a hearing; or

c. the decision or order which is the subject of the reconsideration request is in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance; or

d. other factors exist that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

Requests for Reconsideration

4The applicant’s request does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 26.5. While he considers certain facts I noted in Rill v. Kashruth Council, 2008 HRTO 161, to be irrelevant and clarifies his prior certification as a kosher caterer was as a partner in a catering business rather than an individual, he fails to identify any potentially determinative new facts or evidence in support of the request.

5There is no question the applicant received notice of the proceedings and participated fully in the case resolution conference.

6Although the applicant submits both decisions raise matters of general or public importance there is no suggestion they conflict with the Tribunal’s established case law. I am satisfied neither decision raises an issue of general or public importance and that both decisions are consistent with the Tribunal’s jurisprudence.

7Finally, while the applicant asserts I was “overwhelmed” by the respondents’ counsel during the hearing, I am satisfied the applicant was able to fully articulate his position on the motion to dismiss, that I understood his position, that the decisions fairly reflect the evidence and submissions received and that the hearing was conducted in a fair, just and expeditious manner.

8Essentially, the applicant disagrees with my finding on the merits of his Applications. This is not a sufficient basis to warrant reconsideration. The requests for reconsideration are denied.