Meriano v. Benteler Automotive, 2010 HRTO 1826

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

John Meriano Applicant

-and-

Benteler Automotive Canada Corp., Bill Mauris, Greg Thompson, Sean Bates and Sergio Cavalheio Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta Date: September 7, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 1826 Indexed as: Meriano v. Benteler Automotive

Introduction

1On July 16, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Decision in which it dismissed the Application because it had not been filed in a timely manner and the delay was found not to have been incurred in good faith: 2010 HRTO 1551. On August 12, 2010, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of that Decision and submissions in support of his Request.

2A respondent is not required to respond to a Request for Reconsideration unless directed to do so by the Tribunal. In the circumstances of this Request, the Tribunal did not deem it necessary to seek submissions from the respondents.

BACKGROUND

3John Meriano filed an Application on January 19, 2010 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination and reprisal in respect of employment on the basis of disability and age.

4The Application documents indicated that the last incident of discrimination had taken place on July 6, 2007. The applicant was initially given an opportunity to provide written submissions. A conference call was then convened during which submissions were heard on the issue of whether the Application should be dismissed on the basis of delay.

5The applicant argued that he had not filed a grievance despite feeling his rights had been violated because he had relied on the advice of his union. The delay was also caused because he had been dealing with a number of other issues in the intervening period and he ultimately decided to pursue the Application because of a conversation during a chance encounter with a person who had worked for the same employer.

6The Application was dismissed on the basis that the applicant had failed to provide a good faith reason for the delay in filing.

7The applicant seeks reconsideration of the decision to dismiss his Application. He argues that he ought to have been able to rely on his union to pursue his case and that any delay ought to be viewed in light of his reliance on them. He has also included excerpts from a number of Tribunal and court decisions.

8This is the Tribunal’s decision on the Request for Reconsideration.

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

9Section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990 c. H.19, as amended (“Code”) allows any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal to request that 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.

10It 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.

11In his Request the applicant has checked the boxes indicating that the reason for his Request is that there are new facts or evidence potentially determinative of the case that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier, that the decision is in conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure and the reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance and, finally, that factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

12A Request for Reconsideration is not an opportunity to restate or re-argue a position already advanced and considered. In his Request, the applicant has made no relevant submissions that bear on the identified grounds for reconsideration or, indeed, on any of the criteria outlined in either Rule 26 or the Practice Direction on Reconsideration. The thrust of his submissions merely reiterate arguments made earlier in the process. It is evident that the applicant disagrees with the Tribunal’s finding. However, he has presented no basis to reconsider the decision.

13The Request for Reconsideration is denied.