Gessesse Zeamanuel v. Avcan Management Inc., 2010 HRTO 2108

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Gessesse Zeamanuel

Applicant

-and-

Avcan Management Inc. and Mike Imseis

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart

Date: October 19, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 2108

Indexed as: Zeamanuel v. Avcan Management

1This Decision addresses a Request for Reconsideration filed by the applicant in relation to the Tribunal’s Decision 2010 HRTO 1721 dated August 19, 2010, which dismissed this Application pursuant to s. 45.1 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended, (the “Code”) on the basis that the substance of the Application already had appropriately been dealt with in another proceeding, namely in a hearing before the Ontario Labour Relations Board. On August 31, 2010, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision.

2Section 45.7 of 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.

3Under 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 (Practice Direction on Reconsideration, January 2008 amended June 2008).

4The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration begins with the following statements:

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.

5As 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.

6In 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.

7The 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.

8As 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 upon which he relies.

9On the Request for Reconsideration filed by the applicant, he has checked the boxes indicating that he is relying upon the criteria in Rule 25.5 (c) and (d), however he has not provided any detailed reasons or representations to support his reconsideration request, despite expressly being invited to do so on the form he filed.

10In the absence of any reasons or representations to support the Request for Reconsideration, there is simply no basis to support the applicant’s Request. My Decision is in line with this Tribunal’s jurisprudence, and the applicant has not identified any established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure with which my Decision is in conflict. Nor has the applicant identified any factors that would outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

11Accordingly, the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration is denied.