Marderic Delos Santos v. Maple Lodge Farms Ltd., 2009 HRTO 2204

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

BETWEEN:

Marderic Delos Santos Applicant

-and-

Maple Lodge Farms Ltd., Nadia Clements, Bob Luce and Adelia Jeronimo Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty Date: December 17, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 2204 Indexed as: Delos Santos v. Maple Lodge Farms

INTRODUCTION

1On October 15, 2009, the Tribunal issued a Decision, 2009 HRTO 1690, in which it dismissed this Application pursuant to section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the "Code"). The Tribunal concluded that the substance of the Application had been appropriately dealt with in a grievance arbitration.

2The applicant has 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 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.

5The applicant states the Request is based on new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier. The new fact advanced by the applicant is an alleged telephone call to the respondent from the applicant's return to work specialist. The applicant states that, in the course of this conversation, the specialist advised the respondent that the applicant would be absent from work from May 8 to May 11 because of his disability.

6In the Request, however, the applicant made no submissions as to why this fact could not reasonably have been obtained earlier. The Request does not meet the criteria established in the Rules which require that the applicant establish both that there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that these could not reasonably have been obtained earlier.

7It is evident that the applicant disagrees with the Tribunal's finding, however he has presented no appropriate basis to reconsider the Decision.

8The Request is denied.