Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
BETWEEN:
José Gonzalez Applicant
-and-
Toronto Catholic District School Board and Hanna Cabaj Respondents
-and-
Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1328 Intervenor
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Lorne Slotnick Date: May 26, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 1101 Indexed as: Gonzalez v. Toronto Catholic District School Board
Decision
1This Decision addresses a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, 2010 HRTO 754, dismissing the Application. The Application was dismissed as an abuse of process because the applicant had signed a full and final release in favour of the respondents of all matters relating to his employment with the respondents.
2The Request for Reconsideration is dated May 10, 2010, and is filed under section 45.7 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended, (the “Code”).
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.
3The 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).
4The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration begins with the following statements:
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.
5As is evident from the above, reconsideration is a discretionary remedy. That is, while the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to reopen and reconsider its own decisions, it is not obliged to do so. It may decide when reconsideration is advisable, both through the promulgation of rules setting out conditions for the exercise of its discretion, and through the application of its discretion on a case-by-case basis.
6The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure for Transitional Applications provide that any party may request reconsideration of a final decision in accordance with the Rules. Rule 26.5 of the Rules provides:
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.
7In his Request, the applicant has cited all four of the conditions listed in Rule 26.5. I will deal with each of them in order.
8The applicant has not asserted any new facts or that there is evidence that could not have been obtained earlier. Several medical notes dating back to 2005 and all predating the hearing of this matter were attached to the Request, but there is no indication that this is newly obtained information, and in any event this evidence would not have changed the Tribunal’s Decision. The applicant was present at the hearing of this matter and gave evidence, so I cannot accept the assertion that he did not receive notice of the proceeding. I also do not accept the statement that the Decision is in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure; in fact, the decision is consistent with numerous decisions dismissing applications where a release has been signed. Finally, the applicant has cited no other factors that might outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.
9In support of his Request, the applicant repeats statements given by him in his evidence at the hearing and considered in the Tribunal’s Decision. As indicated above, a request for reconsideration is not an opportunity to restate or re-argue evidence already advanced and considered.
10Accordingly, I find the applicant has not met the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration. The Request does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 26.5.
11The Request for Reconsideration is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 26^th^ day of May, 2010.
”signed by”_________
Lorne Slotnick Member