Musoni v. Logitek Technology Limited, 2009 HRTO 590

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Bernard Musoni

Applicant

-and-

Logitek Technology Limited, Mateen Zubairi, Larry Detlor and Micheal Lalande

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Dale Hewat

Date: May 7, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 590

Indexed as: Musoni v. Logitek Technology

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Bernard Musoni, Applicant ) On His Own Behalf

1On March 4, 2009, the Tribunal issued a Decision, 2009 HRTO 236, dismissing the Application.

2On March 30, 2009, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, as provided for in section 45.7 of the Code. He asserts the following:

• there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier;

• the Decision is in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure; and

• the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance.

3The applicant raises procedural and conflict of interest issues with respect to one of the respondents’ witnesses, takes issue with the direction limiting number of witnesses and with my decision not to deal with any matters relating to a peace bond appeal and/or Law Society complaint. The applicant raises new facts related to Ms. Ludlow’s knowledge that the applicant originated from Rwanda and that the respondents, including the Chief Executive Officer of the respondent corporation, were aware of his peace bond appeal and that the timing of such knowledge affected how he was treated by the respondents. On April 21, 2009, after the Reconsideration Request had been filed and the deadline for doing so had passed, the applicant submitted copies of 2007 court documents related to the peace bond appeal and again suggested that there is a link between that criminal matter and this case.

Decision

4The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.

5Sections 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.

(2) 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.

6Further 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).

7Relevant to this Decision are the following Rules:

25.1 Any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within 30 days of the date of the decision.

25.3. 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.

25.5. 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;

(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.

8Practice 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

9The new evidence raised by the applicant was within his knowledge prior to the Case Resolution Conference and thus does not come within the provisions of Rule 25.5(a). Even though I am not obliged to consider the late submissions received pertaining to the 2007 court documents, I have reviewed them and I am satisfied that the materials relate to the applicant’s separate criminal proceeding and are therefore not relevant to his human rights Application. It should be noted that at the beginning of the Case Resolution Conference I discussed with the applicant why the criminal proceeding was a distinct matter that was not relevant to the case before me.

10My rulings with respect to the witness Catherine Ludlow and the number of witnesses are consistent with the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and the expectation expressed in both the Code and the Rules that transition applications proceed in a fair, just and highly expeditious manner. After hearing the applicant’s testimony, respondents’ counsel realised he needed to call Ms. Ludlow in order to provide a full defence. As a consequence, the applicant was able to fully question Ms. Ludlow without calling her as his witness. The other witnesses initially listed by the respondents were not required because their testimony was redundant. The applicant has failed to establish how my approach to these matters is inconsistent with the Tribunal’s procedures or its jurisprudence.

11The applicant also did not identify how the reconsideration request involved a matter of general or public importance. Rather, he essentially re-argued the merits of his case.

12In all the circumstances the Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.