Santiago Quimado v. S.A. Armstrong Can. Ltd. and Jim Armstrong, 2009 HRTO 1929

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Santiago Quimado

Applicant

-and-

S.A. Armstrong Can. Ltd. and Jim Armstrong

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty

Date: November 12, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1929

Indexed as: Quimado v. S.A. Armstrong

INTRODUCTION

1On September 25, 2009, the Tribunal issued a Decision, 2009 HRTO 1552, in which it dismissed the Application because its substance had already been dealt with by the Tribunal in the context of a previous Application.

2On October 19, 2009, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration (“Request”) and submissions in support of his Request. A respondent is not required to respond to a Request for Reconsideration unless directed to do so by the Tribunal. In the circumstances of this Request, the Tribunal did not deem it necessary to seek submissions from the respondent.

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

3Section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990 c. H.19 (the “Code”) allows any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal to request that it reconsider its decision. The Rules elaborate on the conditions and requirements of such a request. Pursuant to Rule 26.5, 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.

4It is also useful to consider the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration, which 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.

5In his Form 20, the applicant checked the box identifying a conflict with established case law in a matter of general or public importance as the basis for the Request for Reconsideration.

6In his Request, however, the applicant made no submissions that bear on this factor or, indeed, on any of the criteria outlined in either Rule 26 or the Practice Direction on Reconsideration. The thrust of his submissions merely reiterates arguments made in the Response to the Notice of Intent to Dismiss. It is evident that the applicant disagrees with the Tribunal’s finding, however he has presented no basis to reconsider the Decision.

7The Request for Reconsideration is denied.