Kularaj Kulasingam v. Toral Cast Integrated Technologies, 2010 HRTO 1626

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Kularaj Kulasingam

Applicant

-and-

Toral Cast Integrated Technologies, a division of Magna Powertrain Inc. and Ramdat Singh

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart

Date: July 30, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1626

Indexed as: Kulasingam v. Toral Cast Integrated Technologies

1This Decision addresses a request for reconsideration by the applicant in relation to the Tribunal’s Decision 2010 HRTO 505, dated March 5, 2010 dismissing the Application.

2On March 31, 2010, the applicant filed a Request for reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision.

3Section 45.7 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended (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.

4Under section 45.7 of the Code, the Tribunal may, at the request of a party or on its own initiative, reconsider a final decision in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules. The 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.

5The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration begins with the following statements:

Decisions of the HRTO are final and are not subject to appeal. However, parties may request that the HRTO reconsider a final decision it has made. Reconsideration is a discretionary remedy; there is no right to have a decision reconsidered by the HRTO. Generally, the HRTO 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.

6As is evident from the above, reconsideration is a discretionary remedy. That is, while the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to re-open 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.

7In Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34, the Tribunal stated 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.

8The 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 25.5 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.

9As a result, I need to determine whether the material filed by the applicant in support of his request for reconsideration satisfies any of the criteria set out in Rule 25.5.

10On the Request for Reconsideration filed by the applicant, he has checked a box indicating that he is relying upon criterion (a), namely that there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier. However, he does not anywhere on the form indicate what this new evidence is alleged to be, how it is alleged to be potentially determinative of the case, or why it couldn’t have been obtained earlier.

11The applicant also has checked a box indicating that he is relying upon criterion (c), namely that 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. However, once again, the applicant does not identify what established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure the decision is alleged to be in conflict with, or why a matter of general or public importance is involved.

12In filing a Request for Reconsideration, an applicant is required to provide detailed reasons and representations in support of the request. The applicant has failed to do so, and as a result there is no basis in the material submitted by the applicant to support his reconsideration request.

13Accordingly, the Request for Reconsideration is denied.