HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Tai Nguyen
Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, the Ministry of Labour, and the Ministry of the Attorney General, Ontario Human Rights Commission, Ontario Labour Relations Board, Ombudsman of Ontario, Ontario Public Service Employees Union and Madeleine Meilleur
Respondents
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Sherry Liang
Indexed as: Nguyen v. Ontario (Health and Long-Term Care)
1This is an Application made under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the Code), on August 11, 2008.
2On March 26, 2009, the Tribunal issued a Decision dismissing the Application, 2009 HRTO 355.
3On September 8, 2009, the Tribunal received a Request for Reconsideration from the applicant. The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provide that any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within thirty days from the date of the decision. The Rules also require that such requests must be made in Form 20 (Request for Reconsideration). In this matter, it appears that the applicant sent a letter to the Attorney General for Ontario on April 1, 2009, stating that he wished to “appeal his case” to him. It also appears that the applicant sent a copy of this letter to the Chair of the Tribunal, stating that it was “for your information”. He sent further correspondence to the Chair in July and August 2009, to which the Registrar responded directing the applicant to the process for requesting reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal.
4This Request for Reconsideration was made beyond the thirty-day deadline provided under the Tribunal’s Rules. It is unnecessary for the Tribunal to decide whether or not there are grounds to waive the strict application of this deadline. Even assuming it should be accepted, the Request for Reconsideration is denied.
5Section 45.7 of the Code provides the Tribunal with explicit authority to reconsider its decisions. Further to its power to make rules, the Tribunal has issued rules governing Requests for Reconsideration as well as a Practice Direction to provide guidance to the community on the Tribunal’s exercise of its reconsideration powers (Practice Direction on Reconsideration).
6Most relevant is Rule 26 which reads, in part, as follows:
26.5 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; 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 and orders.
7The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration begins with the following statements:
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.
8As is evident from the above, reconsideration is a discretionary remedy. That is, while the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to reopen and reconsider its own decisions, it is not obliged to do so. It may decide when reconsideration is advisable, both through the promulgation of rules setting out conditions for the exercise of its discretion, and through the application of its discretion on a case-by-case basis.
9In the Request form, the applicant has indicated as his reason for requesting reconsideration that the Decision is in conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance. He does not provide submissions in support of the Request, but he does attach various letters which include statements about why he is dissatisfied with the Tribunal’s decision. In the letter to the Attorney General, he states that he believes the Vice-chair does not have enough qualifications and knowledge to understand his complaint and “just wants to use her power to close my case illegally” and “cover up the problem” despite his evidence and documentation. He repeats some of the submissions he has made both in writing and orally about why he believes the respondents have violated the Code.
10Although the material provided sets out the applicant’s concerns about the Decision, he does not explain how it departs from established law or procedure. A request for reconsideration is not an opportunity to restate or re-argue a position already advanced and considered.
11On my review of the materials and the Decision, I am not satisfied that any part of the Decision is in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure. The materials filed by the applicant do not point to any specific aspect of the Decision that is in conflict with established jurisprudence or procedure. Nor do the materials offer any reason to consider this matter to be one of general or public importance.
12I also find no basis for the assertions that I abused my power in dismissing the Application, or was not qualified to determine the Application.
13The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto this 23rd day of September, 2009.
“Signed by”
Sherry Liang
Vice-chair