HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sharon Saucier

Applicant

-and-

Smart Lazer Grafix, a Division of Smart Enterprises Corporation,

Maureen Roberts and Phil Hall

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: August 31, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1364

Indexed as: Saucier v. Smart Lazer Grafix

[1] On August 08, 2009, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal Decision, [2009 HRTO 1053](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2009/1053), pursuant to section 45.7 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

[2] Rule 25.5 provides that 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.

[3] The Practice Direction on Reconsideration issued by the Tribunal suggests the following regarding the Tribunal’s power to grant reconsideration:

(1) Decisions of the Tribunal are generally considered final and are not subject to appeal.

(2) Reconsideration is a discretionary remedy and there is no right to have a decision reconsidered by the Tribunal.

(3) 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.

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

[4] The applicant filed submissions in support indicating that the Request was based upon Rule 25.5(a).

[5] With respect to Rule 25.5(a), the applicant’s submission referred to additional evidence; in particular a further medical report regarding the applicant and a series of typewritten notes. No explanation was provided, however, as to why this evidence could not have not been obtained earlier and submitted at the Case Resolution Conference. Accordingly, it is my view, that such evidence is not admissible at this stage of the process. Moreover, I have reviewed the additional documentation submitted and have determined that, even if it had been entered into evidence as part of the Case Resolution Conference, the conclusion reached would not have been different.

[6] Reconsideration does not exist as a vehicle for a party to reassert positions previously argued or advance arguments that could have been submitted at the Case Resolution Conference. Furthermore, a Request for Reconsideration is not a right of appeal. The applicant’s view that the Tribunal “failed to put into consideration” and “did not consider” certain aspects of the applicant’s argument or that the Tribunal “generally preferred the respondent’s position wherever there was a divergence in the evidence” is not relevant with respect to a Request for Reconsideration. For the Tribunal to grant reconsideration the specific language of Rule 25.5 has to be satisfied.

[7] Accordingly, since the applicant has failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 25.5, her Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.

Dated at Toronto, this 31st day of August, 2009.

“Signed by”

Keith Brennenstuhl

Vice-chair