Rossetto v. Hamir, 2010 HRTO 1424

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Gilmar Rossetto

Applicant

-and-

Shabir Hamir

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Faisal Bhabha

Date: June 28, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1424

Indexed as: Rossetto v. Hamir

1On May 6, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Decision, 2010 HRTO 1021 (the “Decision”), finding that the Application does not allege discrimination on a prohibited ground and therefore fails to raise matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide. The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Decision.

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

2Section 45.7 of the Code allows any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal to request it reconsider its decision. The Rules elaborate on the conditions and requirements of such a request. Pursuant to Rule 26.5, 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.

3It is also useful to consider the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration, which 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.

DECISION

4The applicant argues that there is new information to support his Application. While the original Application only alleges discrimination based on reprisal—in other words, it fails to plead a prohibited ground of discrimination—the applicant states that “in recent weeks”, one of the respondent’s “co-workers told me and others at lunch table that the reason for swearing was my color (or race)”. On the basis of this new information, the applicant requests reconsideration and asks to amend his Application to include race instead of reprisal.

5I am not persuaded that the applicant has met the requirements of the Rules. It is necessary that he demonstrate more than just new facts or information. The Rules require that the information be potentially “determinative of the case” and also that it “could not reasonably have been obtained earlier”.

6The incident alleged in the Application occurred on December 10, 2009. In submissions dated May 26, 2010, the applicant claims he learned the new information “in recent weeks”. He does not specify any particulars about the identity of the source (other than as a co-worker of the respondent) or the precise date that the information came to be known. This does not constitute a sufficient basis to conclude this information could not reasonably have been obtained earlier.

7In view of the above, the Reconsideration Request is denied.