Junejo v. Peel (Regional Municipality), 2010 HRTO 157

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Abdul Junejo

Applicant

-and-

The Regional Municipality of Peel and Robert Woodhouse

Respondents

-and-

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 966

Intervenor

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: January 25, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 157

Indexed as: Junejo v. Peel (Regional Municipality)

INTRODUCTION

1On November 9, 2009, the Tribunal issued a Decision, 2009 HRTO 1912, finding that the applicant had not proved that the respondent breached section 5 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant has filed a Request for Reconsideration of this Decision.

2In his Request for Reconsideration, the applicant asserts there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier. In support of his position, the applicant states that the Tribunal wrongfully assessed the credibility of the respondents and “ignored certain determinative facts” which were not specified. The applicant states that the respondents had more resourcefulness and expert legal advice and submits that the better legal tools you have, the better chance of receiving a favourable decision from the Tribunal. The applicant requests that the Tribunal reassess documentary and other evidence such as video records, log books and documents which could not be altered and order production of various documentation held by the respondents.

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

3Section 45.7 of the Code allows any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal to request it reconsider its decision. The Rues 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 exit that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

4It 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 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.

5The applicant has not provided any explanation as to why the evidence that he seeks the Tribunal to order and review could not have been requested or obtained prior to the hearing. He does not provide any basis upon which he alleges the Tribunal “wrongfully assessed the other party to be more credible” or what “certain determinative facts” were ignored. Even if he provided those details, his Reconsideration Request would still need to fall within the conditions of Rule 26.5. On the material before me, I am not satisfied that any of the conditions listed in Rule 25.5 exist in this case.

6In view of the above, the Reconsideration Request is denied.