HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ulysse Guerrier

Applicant

-and-

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) Care Contact Centre

and Rossella Sperini

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION decision

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: May 6, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 583

Indexed as: Guerrier v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce

[1] The applicant has filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision 2009 HRTO 124, dated February 4, 2009 (the “Decision”), dismissing the Application because the corporate respondent appeared to be federally regulated.

[2] The Decision was based on written submissions from the parties. The respondents submitted that the corporate respondent is federally regulated and provided documents that support that conclusion. The applicant submitted that the corporate respondent is not federally regulated and that the Tribunal therefore does have jurisdiction to deal with the Application. In support of the applicant’s view of the jurisdiction issue, his representative asserted that he had discussed the situation with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (the “CHRC”). The representative advised that the applicant had filed an application with the CHRC which was “stayed” pending the outcome of the Application before this Tribunal. According to the applicant’s representative, he has been told by the CHRC that it is of the view that it does not have jurisdiction over the matters giving rise to the Application. This information has not, however, been communicated in writing.

[3] In the Decision I discussed the evidence before me and concluded:

In summary, the respondents have provided evidence to support finding the corporate respondent is federally regulated. The only evidence to the contrary is the unsupported hearsay assertion that the CHRC verbally indicated that it did not have jurisdiction over “CIBC Visa”. Based on the evidence, I find that the corporate respondent is federally regulated and that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the Application.

[4] Under section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), the Tribunal may, at the request of a party or on its own initiative, reconsider its decisions in accordance with Tribunal’s Rules.

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.

[5] The Tribunal has issued Rules governing such requests as well as a Practice Direction to provide guidance to the community on the Tribunal’s exercise of its reconsideration powers (Practice Direction on Reconsideration, January 2008 amended June 2008). Rule 26 states:

26.1 Any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within (thirty) 30 days of the date of the decision

26.5. 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.

[6] The applicant submitted a Request for Reconsideration (the “Request”) on March 4, 2009. The applicant noted that the Tribunal’s Rules provide that any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within 30 days from the date of the decision.

[7] The Request indicated that the applicant had no new evidence to support his contention that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with the Application, apart from further conversations with a representative from the CHRC. However, he indicated that he felt that he was required to submit the Request or he would lose the ability to seek reconsideration because of the 30 day period mentioned in the Rules.

[8] In effect, the applicant sought additional time to allow him to file evidence which he continues to hope he will be able to obtain from the CHRC relevant to the jurisdictional issue.

[9] By letter dated March 23, 2009, the Tribunal Registrar granted a two week extension of time to allow the applicant to file a completed Request for Reconsideration.

[10] On April 6, 2009, at the expiry of the two week period, the applicant’s representative wrote to the Tribunal to advise that, while there have been further conversations with the CHRC, he still has no further information relevant to the jurisdictional issue.

[11] On April 8, 2009, counsel for the respondents wrote to the Tribunal to advise that she too has spoken to a representative of the CHRC. Her understanding is that the applicant’s complaint at the CHRC is still stayed and that no further action will be taken until the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration has been dealt with by this Tribunal.

[12] The applicant’s representative then wrote to the Tribunal on April 15, 2009 stating that the respondent’s understanding of the status of the CHRC matter is not correct. He advises that he still has no actual evidence that might indicate that the CHRC is of the view that it does not have jurisdiction over the matters giving rise to the Application. However, he points out that he is not in a position to require the CHRC to come to any decision or produce any documentation.

[13] The problem that the applicant is concerned with is that he anticipates that he will be able to obtain a ruling from the CHRC that it does not have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter but that he has no control over when such a ruling might be forthcoming. It was not available within 30 days of the Decision and so evidence that might support a Request for Reconsideration could not be filed within the 30 day period mentioned in the Tribunal’s Rules. Such evidence was also not available within the two week time extension granted by the Tribunal Registrar, and is apparently still not available.

[14] The Tribunal’s Rule 1.7(a) provides that in order to provide for the fair, just and expeditious resolution of any matter before it, the Tribunal may lengthen or shorten any time limit in the Rules. The applicant has in effect, asked the Tribunal to grant an indefinite extension to allow him to file evidence in support of the Request.

[15] Based on the information currently available, I find no basis to grant a further extension of time, beyond the 2 weeks already granted by the Tribunal Registrar. There is no indication when further evidence relevant to the jurisdiction issue might be available.

[16] Based on the information currently available, there is no evidence to suggest that the finding that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to deal with the Application was incorrect. The only evidence that has been provided is unsupported statements by the applicant’s representative about conversations that he continues to have with a representative from the CHRC. While I appreciate that the applicant’s representative is attempting to preserve his client’s rights, the fact is that no evidence has been provided that might cause the Tribunal to seek submissions from the respondents as to whether there is reason to reconsider its Decision.

[17] For these reasons, I find that the Request for Reconsideration must be denied.

Dated at Toronto, this 6^th^ day of May, 2009.

“Signed by”

Brian Cook

Vice-chair