Isai v. Milk and Bread Drivers, Dairy Employees, Caterers and Allied Employees, Local Union 647, 2010 HRTO 1007

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sabri Isai Applicant

-and-

Milk and Bread Drivers, Dairy Employees, Caterers and Allied Employees, Local Union 647, Gerry Cadeau, Amanda Jawanda, John Romanelli and Ricardo Machado Respondents

A N D B E T W E E N:

Sabri Isai Applicant

-and-

Cara Operations Limited, Lisa Bruce, Mike Green and Martin Leblanc Respondents

Reconsideration DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: May 6, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 1007 Indexed as: Isai v. Milk and Bread Drivers, Dairy Employees, Caterers and Allied Employees, Local Union 647

1This is an Application dated June 25, 2009, under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2On April 30, 2010, the applicant has made a request pursuant to Rule 25.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure for Transitional Applications for reconsideration of my Decision 2010 HRTO 756 dismissing the Application. The applicant has also filed a Request for Tribunal Ordered Inquiry and two Requests to Intervene.

3Rule 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.

4The applicant did not address any of these four considerations in his lengthy submissions in support of the Request for reconsideration. Rather, with the provision of extensive documentation and material related to other proceedings involving the applicant, the applicant’s spouse and others, the applicant attempted to re-argue the preliminary issue as well as the merits of his Application. The applicant evidently disagrees with the conclusions I reached in my Decision. However, that is not a proper basis for reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal.

5Accordingly the Request for reconsideration is dismissed. Having dismissed the Request for reconsideration, there is no need to deal with the other Requests as the Application is finally disposed of.