Sami Jacob v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2009 HRTO 1745

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Sami Jacob

Applicant

-and-

Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, Shelley Caissie and Rachelle St. Jacques

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: October 22, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1745

Indexed as: Jacob v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board

1This Decision addresses a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision 2009 HRTO 1483 dismissing the Application on the basis that the matters complained of fell with the adjudicative function of the respondents and not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

2On October 15, 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”).

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 submitted that the Decision was inconsistent with established jurisprudence on the interpretation of “services” under the Code. The case law referred to by the applicant was considered by me when the applicant first alluded to it in his original submissions.

5The central submission of the applicant is that he disagrees with my legal analysis and that is not a basis for reconsideration.

6The Request for reconsideration is denied.