Edward Ozog v. The Caldwell Partners International Inc., Elizabeth Zucchiatti, and Ralph Chauvin, 2010 HRTO 2323

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Edward Ozog

Applicant

-and-

The Caldwell Partners International Inc., Elizabeth Zucchiatti, and Ralph Chauvin

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Sheehan

Date: November 23, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 2323

Indexed as: Ozog v. Caldwell Partners International

1The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of Tribunal Decision 2010 HRTO 1986, pursuant to section 45.7 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended (the "Code").

2Rule 25.5 provides that 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.

3The Practice Direction on Reconsideration issued by the Tribunal suggests the following regarding the Tribunal's power to grant reconsideration:

(1) Decisions of the Tribunal are generally considered final and are not subject to appeal.

(2) Reconsideration is a discretionary remedy and there is no right to have a decision reconsidered by the Tribunal.

(3) 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.

(4) Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of its case.

4The applicant based his reconsideration request on Rule 25.5 (c) and (d).

5Reconsideration does not exist as a vehicle for a party to reassert positions previously argued or advance arguments that could have been previously submitted. Furthermore, a Request for Reconsideration is not a right of appeal. As outlined in 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 the satisfaction of the specific language of Rule 25.5.

6At its core the applicant's Request is an attempt to appeal the Tribunal's decision. That the applicant is of the view that the Tribunal erred in applying the pertinent jurisprudence to the facts of the case is not relevant in itself, with respect to a Request for Reconsideration. For the Tribunal to grant a Request for Reconsideration, the specific language of Rule 25.5 has to be satisfied. Further to this point, the applicant's Request fails to establish, in any manner, a conflict between the Tribunal's decision and established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure.

7Regarding the claim that the Tribunal's ruling is premised on the improper acceptance of the respondents' evidence as true; the Decision is in fact premised on the undisputed fact that the applicant was rejected as a candidate before the relevant decision-makers had any knowledge of his sexual orientation or marital status. The applicant pleaded no fact, which if accepted as true, would suggest the respondents' subsequent decision-making was improperly influenced by the knowledge of his sexual orientation or marital status. As suggested in Jagait v. IN TECH Risk Management, 2009 HRTO 770, it would have been neither legally correct or fair to require the respondents to proceed to a hearing to lead evidence to disprove a completely unadorned and unsupported allegation.

8Additionally, it is noted there is no basis to suggest that the Reconsideration of this matter constitutes a matter of general or public importance.

9Accordingly, the Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.