Ritchie Dube v. Rockhaven Recovery Limited, 2009 HRTO 197

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Ritchie Dube

Applicant

-and-

Rockhaven Recovery Limited, Nicole Cardinal, Jerry Nolan and Chris Jackel

Respondents

Reconsideration DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: February 24, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 197

Indexed as: Dube v. Rockhaven Recovery

Decision

1The applicant has made a request for reconsideration of the Decision dismissing his Application, 2009 HRTO 53, pursuant to Rule 25.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure for Transitional Applications under sections 53(3) and 53(5) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2Rule 25.5 provides that 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.

3The applicant did not expressly address any of these four considerations in his lengthy submissions in support of the request for reconsideration. However, in considering the submissions as a whole, certain of the issues contemplated by Rule 25.5 are addressed indirectly.

4The applicant does raise a number of new factual allegations, going largely to the strength of his prima facie case. None of the facts alleged in these submissions are relevant to the issues determined in the Decision. Moreover, none are new facts and all could have been disclosed at the Case Resolution Conference. In any event, they would not have affected the result reached in the Decision.

5The applicant fully participated in the Case Resolution Conference. There is no issue of a failure to provide notice. There is no allegation of an alleged conflict with established Tribunal jurisprudence.

6The applicant made no submission that other factors are present that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions and I find that that no such factors exist in this case.

7Accordingly the request for reconsideration is dismissed.