Harry Dyal v. Toronto Transit Commission and Mike James, 2009 HRTO 1098

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Harry Dyal

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Transit Commission and Mike James

Respondents

Reconsideration DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty

Date: July 28, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1098

Indexed as: Dyal v. Toronto Transit Commission

[1] This Decision addresses a Request for reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision dismissing the Application.

2On July 9, 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”). This provision states:

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 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 made no submissions in his Request that bear on any of the above factors. His central submission is that the respondents were permitted to file documentary evidence that was not relevant and that was not disclosed according to the timelines set out in Rule 16 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.

5The document complained of was not, in fact, admitted into evidence. While the respondents attempted to file the document at the hearing, I held that it was not relevant to the proceedings before me. Accordingly, the document was not marked as an exhibit and was not relied upon by the Tribunal.

6The Request for reconsideration is denied.