HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Michael Grzesiak
Complainant
-and-
Ontario Human Rights Commission
Commission
-and-
1263699 Ontario Limited (formerly DOT Benefits Corp.) and Martin Shaw
Respondents
reconsideration DECISION
Adjudicator: David J. Mullan
Indexed as: Grzesiak v. 1263699 Ontario Limited (formerly DOT Benefits Corp.)
INTRODUCTION
1On October 29, 2008, the Tribunal issued a Decision (2008 HRTO 206) finding that 1263699 Ontario Limited (formerly DOT Benefits Corp.) (“DOT Benefits”) and Martin Shaw, its President, had violated Michael Grzesiak’s rights to equal treatment and to be free from discrimination on the basis of disability under section 5 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). It also found that DOT Benefits and Martin Shaw had violated Michael Grzesiak’s right under section 8 of the Code not to be subjected to any form of reprisal for asserting his rights under the Code. As a consequence, it awarded general and special damages totalling $154,000 (plus orders with respect to pre- and post-judgment interest) against both respondents, and, as a public interest remedy, required the corporate respondent to obtain assistance in developing an anti-discrimination policy with particular emphasis on the duty to accommodate employees with a disability.
2On November 28, 2008, both respondents filed Notice of a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision, as provided for in section 45.7 of the Code. In the Request for Reconsideration, in Schedule “A”, the respondents alleged that the Tribunal had made nine errors of fact and law. As a result, it requested that the complaint be dismissed and that the Tribunal order Mr. Grzesiak and the Commission to pay the respondents their costs before the Tribunal on both the original hearing and the Request for Reconsideration “on a substantial indemnity basis.”
DECISION
3The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.
RELEVANT LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
4Sections 45.7 and 45.8 of the Code provide the Tribunal with authority to reconsider its decisions while confirming the finality of the Tribunal’s decisions:
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.
Upon request under subsection (1) or on its own motion, the Tribunal may reconsider its decision in accordance with its rules.
45.8 Subject to section 45.6 of this Act, section 21.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Tribunal rules, a decision of the Tribunal is final and not subject to appeal and shall not be altered or set aside in an application for judicial review or in any other proceeding unless the decision is patently unreasonable.
5Further to its power to make rules, the Tribunal has issued rules governing Requests for Reconsideration as well as a Practice Direction to provide guidance on the Tribunal’s exercise of its reconsideration powers (Practice Direction #4 Reconsideration).
6Relevant to this decision are the following Rules:
Any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within 30 days of the date of the decision.
A request for reconsideration must include:
(a) reasons for the request, including the basis on which the Tribunal is asked to grant the request for reconsideration;
(b) submissions in support of the request; and
(c) the remedy or relief sought.
- 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;
(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;
(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.
7Practice 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.
ANALYSIS
8Schedule “A” of the respondents’ Request for Reconsideration speaks in terms of “the grounds of appeal” and then lists a series of nine alleged errors of law and fact. In terms of Rule 100, a listing of alleged errors does not amount to a setting out of the “reasons for the request” and “the basis on which the Tribunal is being asked” to reconsider its decision. The process is not an appeal in the usual sense of that word and the requirements of Rule 100 are not met by the recitation of grounds of appeal. This failure is compounded by the respondents’ omission of “submissions in support of its request.” Moreover, the mere recitation of possible errors provides the Tribunal with no basis at all for any determination whether the Request for Reconsideration meets any of the criteria listed in Rule 102 as justifying any reconsideration. In short, the Request for Reconsideration does not come close to compliance with the relevant Rules or provide justification for the complainant and the Commission being called upon to respond to the request under Rule 103.
ORDER
9The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 18th day of February, 2009.
“Signed by”
David J. Mullan
Member
CORRECTION
The name of the corporate respondent “DOT Benefits Corp.” is corrected to “1263699 Ontario Limited”, with the clarifying notation “(formerly DOT Benefits Corp.)” per the Tribunal’s decision of January 2, 2013, 2013 HRTO 1.
Dated at Toronto, this 2nd day of January , 2013.
“Signed by”
Sheri D. Price
Vice-chair```