HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Leonard Reece

Applicant

-and-

J. D. Griffin Centre, Diane Broad, Lynn Crawford and Winifred Coddett

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Ailsa Jane Wiggins

Date: September 1, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1383

Indexed as: Reece v. J. D. Griffin Centre

Introduction

[1] This Decision addresses a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Case Resolution Conference Decision, [2009 HRTO 843](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2009/843) (CanLll), dismissing the Application.

[2] A two day Case Resolution Conference (“CRC”) was held on March 11 and 12, 2009 in accordance with the expectation, expressed in the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended, (the “Code”) and the Tribunal’s rules, that section 53(3) applications proceed in a highly expeditious manner.

[3] On July 2, 2009, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration under section 45.7 of 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.

[4] Rule 25 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure for Transitional Applications under section 53(3) and 53(5) of the Code provides that 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.

[5] These four circumstances are also set out in section 2 of the Request for Reconsideration form which states: “Please check the reasons why you are making this Request for Reconsideration. Check all that apply.”

[6] The applicant checked the fourth circumstance and included an attachment in support of his Request (the “attachment”).

[7] Practice 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.

[8] The applicant states that the “Respondent: Admits to saying these things in their application. Never provided any factual evidence” and that the respondents’ witnesses “told three different stories, which were all lies”.

[9] On the contrary, the respondents in their Response to the complaint and through their witnesses at the hearing vigorously denied the applicant’s allegations. The respondents’ witnesses all provided the same compelling, non-discriminatory explanations for the termination of the applicant’s employment and documentary evidence, including a warning letter and a performance improvement plan.

[10] The applicant states that the respondents “provided forged documents”. At the hearing each side challenged documents produced by the other. There was no evidence at the hearing nor did the applicant supply any new evidence with his Request for Reconsideration indicating that any of the respondents’ documents were forged.

[11] The applicant alleges that the respondents’ lawyer tampered with the applicant’s witness, an allegation that he made at the beginning of the hearing. The applicant’s witness contacted the respondents’ lawyer. The respondents’ lawyer informed the witness that the witness was under no obligation to speak to the respondents’ lawyer. There is no property in witnesses. There was no tampering.

[12] Most of the applicant’s submissions in support of his Request for Reconsideration constitute an attack on the evidence given by the respondents at the hearing. This does not justify reconsideration of a decision.

[13] The applicant actively participated in the CRC. He made opening and closing statements, presented his evidence, examined his witness and cross examined the respondents’ witnesses. I allowed the applicant to call one of the two witnesses he brought with him on the first day of the hearing even though he had not complied with the Rules in that he had failed to provide the Tribunal and the respondents with a witness list and will-say statements in advance of the hearing. The evidence the applicant tendered was admitted and considered. The applicant disagrees with my findings of fact based on the evidence before me.

[14] There are no factors that, in my opinion, outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions. Reconsideration is not an opportunity for a party to restate its case, nor is it available simply because a party disagrees with a decision.

[15] The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.

Dated at Toronto, this 1^st^ day of September, 2009.

“Signed by”

_________________________________________

Ailsa Jane Wiggins

Member