Henry Roos v. Firestone Textiles Ltd., 2009 HRTO 1069

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Henry Roos

Applicant

-and-

Firestone Textiles Ltd.

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Keene

Date: July 20, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1069

Indexed as: Roos v. Firestone Textiles

1On July 13, 2009, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, 2009 HRTO 698, as provided for in section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the "Code").

2The Application at issue here alleged that the respondent, his former employer, had discriminated against him on the ground of disability, contrary to sections 5 and 9 of the Code. The Application dealt with a series of events that occurred between 1989 and 2004. The evidence showed that the subject-matter of this Application was the same as that of a complaint filed by the applicant with the Ontario Human Rights Commission on July 3, 2003. The Commission declined to deal with that complaint in November 2003, and upheld its refusal on reconsideration in June 2005. The Application was dismissed pursuant to s. 53(8) of the Code.

3Section 53(8) of the Code provides as follows:

No Application, other than an Application under subsection (3) or (5), may be made to the Tribunal if the subject-matter of the Application is the same or substantially the same as the subject-matter of a complaint that was filed with the Commission under the old Part IV.

DECISION

4Sections 45.7 and 45.8 of the Code provide the Tribunal with authority to reconsider its decisions while confirming the finality of the Tribunal’s decisions:

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.

45.8 Subject to section 45.6 of this Act, section 21.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Tribunal rules, a decision of the Tribunal is final and not subject to appeal and shall not be altered or set aside in an application for judicial review or in any other proceeding unless the decision is patently unreasonable.

5Further to its power to make rules, the Tribunal has issued rules governing Requests for Reconsideration as well as a Practice Direction to provide guidance on the Tribunal’s exercise of its reconsideration powers (Practice Direction #4 reconsideration).

6Relevant to this Reconsideration Decision is the following Rule:

25.5. 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;

(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;

(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 and orders.

7Practice Direction #4 states, in part:

Decisions of the Tribunal are generally considered final and are not subject to appeal. However, parties may request that the Tribunal reconsider a final decision it has made. Reconsideration is a discretionary remedy; there is no right to have a decision reconsidered by the Tribunal. Generally, the Tribunal will only reconsider a decision where it finds that there are compelling and extraordinary circumstances for doing so and where these circumstances outweigh the public interest in finality of orders and decisions.

Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of its case.

8In his submissions on his request for reconsideration, the applicant essentially repeats arguments made orally before the Tribunal. A request for reconsideration is not an opportunity to restate or re-argue a position already advanced and considered.

9In the circumstances, I am not satisfied that any of the conditions listed in Rule 25.5 exist in this case. The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.