Leckie v. Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, 2009 HRTO 1035

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Fred Leckie

Applicant

-and-

Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, John Moffat, Tim Pieprzak and Leanne Sneddon

Respondents

Reconsideration DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Handelman

Date: July 14, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1035

Indexed As: Leckie v. Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board

1This Decision addresses a Request for reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, 2009 HRTO 668, dismissing the Application on the basis that the applicant’s disabilities were reasonably accommodated.

2On June 17, 2009, the applicant filed a Request 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.

3Rule 25 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure for Transitional Applications under Section 53(3) and 53(5) of the Code provides any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within 30 days of the date of the decision. Rule 25.5 provides:

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.

4The applicant alleged new facts or evidence as one of his grounds for reconsideration. However, the new facts or evidence he wanted to adduce was contained in documents he asked the respondents to produce and which they refused on the grounds that it was not relevant to this Application. The Tribunal agreed with the respondents when the applicant filed a “Request for Production;” see 2009 HRTO 518, denying the applicant’s Request to produce the same records he now says are new facts or evidence.

5The applicant did not allege he failed to receive notice of the Case Resolution Conference or that the Decision conflicted with established jurisrudence or Tribunal procedure.

6The applicant’s other ground for reconsideration is that there were 22 mistakes of fact in the Case Resolution Conference Decision. One mistake alleged is that his age and the number of years he worked for the corporate respondent were wrong in the Decision. However, that mistake of fact had no impact uon the Decision.

7All of the other alleged mistakes of fact are findings of fact with which the applicant disagrees, misinterprets or misquotes from the Decision.

8The Request for reconsideration is denied.