HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Sylvia Osvald
Complainant
-and-
Ontario Human Rights Commission
Commission
- and –
VideoComm Technologies Inc.
Respondent
Reconsideration DECISION
Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume
Indexed as: Osvald v. VideoComm Technologies
1The respondent, VideoComm, filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision 2010 HRTO 770, pursuant to section 45.7 of the Ontario Human Rights Code R.S. O. c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”).
2Rule 102 of the Rules of Practice effective January 31, 2008, which apply to Commission Referred Complaints, 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.
3This Request for Reconsideration cites Rule 102 (a), (c) and (d).
4The Practice Direction on Reconsideration issued by the Tribunal sets out the following considerations regarding the Tribunal’s power to grant reconsideration:
(1) Decisions of the Tribunal are generally considered final and are not subject to appeal.
(2) Reconsideration is a discretionary remedy and there is no right to have a decision reconsidered by the Tribunal.
(3) 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.
(4) Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of its case.
5In support of its Request, VideoComm raises concerns about the Commission investigation and mediation process. These same concerns were raised before the Tribunal during the hearing. The Tribunal took time to thoroughly explain to the representative of VideoComm, Ms. Ferjo, that the Commission and the Tribunal are two separate, independent bodies, and that the decision of the Tribunal is based solely on the evidence adduced by the parties during the hearing.
6The vast majority of the submissions in the Request represent an attempt to reargue the case. For example, VideoComm argues that a significant number of facts were not taken into consideration by the Tribunal. All of the facts cited in the Request are, in fact, reflected in the Decision. VideoComm also argues that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration discrepancies in evidence between the complainant’s testimony and the medical evidence. When minor discrepancies between the medical evidence and the complainant’s testimony were identified in the course of the hearing, Ms. Ferjo admitted that she was not challenging any of the medical evidence and that she did not believe that the applicant had lied about the circumstances of her miscarriage. Indeed, it was admitted by all parties that the complainant was treated with compassion when she advised her supervisor that she had experienced a miscarriage at work.
7In Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34, the Tribunal confirmed that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case. Once the parties to an application have had the opportunity to present their evidence and arguments to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal has made a decision disposing of the issues, parties are entitled to treat the matter as closed, subject to limited exceptions.
8VideoComm argues that it was denied the right to legal counsel. This issue was raised the first day of hearing, I heard submissions and carefully considered them and ruled that the request for an adjournment was denied. There are no new facts or arguments made in the Request for Reconsideration.
9At its core, the Request for Reconsideration is an attempt by VideoComm to re-argue the case and appeal the Tribunal’s Decision. VideoComm has not met the burden of establishing any of the factors set out in Rule 102. The Request for Reconsideration is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 22nd day of June, 2010.
”signed by”______________
Leslie Reaume
Vice-chair