HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Louie Mavec
Applicant
- and-
Sanofi Pasteur Limited
Respondent
AND B E T W E E N:
Louie Mavec
Applicant
- and-
Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 1701
and Rob Gardner
Respondents
Reconsideration decision
Adjudicator: David Muir
Indexed as: Mavec v. Sanofi Pasteur
1These are two Applications filed with the Tribunal pursuant to s. 53(5) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H-19, as amended (the “Code”).
2The applicant has filed a Request for Reconsideration (Form TR-8) dated May 11, 2010 of my Decision 2010 HRTO 804 dismissing his Applications on the basis that he signed a full and final release in favour of all of the respondents and that it would be an abuse of process to proceed to a hearing of the Applications.
3Section 45.7 of the Code provides as follows:
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.
4The Tribunal’s Rules provide that a reconsideration request may be made in respect of a final decision of the Tribunal. Rule 25 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure for Transitional Applications provides any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within 30 days of the date of the Decision.
5Rule 25.5 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.
6None of the applicant’s submissions address any of the issues raised above. The applicant does suggest that I was biased in dealing with the matter but provides no basis for a reasonable apprehension of bias. Otherwise the applicant’s submissions are largely an attempt to argue the merits of his Applications, matters not touched on in the Decision. The applicant evidently disagrees with my conclusions. However, that is not a proper basis to reconsider the Decision.
7Accordingly, the Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 21^st^ day of May, 2010.
“Signed by”
David Muir
Vice-chair