Jerry Hoblak v. St. Mary’s Cement Inc., 2010 HRTO 2228

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Jerry Hoblak

Applicant

-and-

St. Mary’s Cement Inc., Colin Hill, Ian McEachren and Cindy McDonald

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Hinchman

Date: November 12, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 2228

Indexed as: Hoblak v. St. Mary’s Cement

1This Decision addresses a Request for Reconsideration under section 45.7 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended (the “Code”) of the Tribunal’s Decision, 2010 HRTO 1799, dismissing the Application following a hearing.

2Rule 25 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure for Transitional Applications provides that any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within 30 days of the date of the decision. Rule 25.5 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.

3In his Request, the applicant argues that there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier and that my Decision is in conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance.

4On my review of the Request, I am not satisfied that any of the criteria supporting reconsideration of the Decision have been established.

5My Decision dismissed the Application for delay. The applicant has not cited any case law or Tribunal procedure in conflict with the Decision.

6The applicant also has not raised any new facts. He merely repeats submissions that he already made at the Hearing which he argues are in conflict with my findings. A request for reconsideration is not an opportunity to restate or re-argue evidence already advanced and considered. See Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34. 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 issues raised by the applicant challenging the merits of my decision are not compelling or extraordinary. They do not raise issues of general importance nor outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions. The applicant has not cited any established case law or Tribunal procedure that the Decision conflicts with. The applicant’s disagreement with the conclusions that I drew from the evidence is not a basis for reconsideration.

8The Request does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 25.5. The Request for Reconsideration is denied.