Bissonnette v. Liquor Control Board of Ontario, 2010 HRTO 2332

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Kelly Bissonnette Applicant

-and-

Liquor Control Board of Ontario Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty Date: November 24, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 2332 Indexed as: Bissonnette v. Liquor Control Board of Ontario

Reasons for Decision

1On November 4, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Decision, 2010 HRTO 2215, in which it dismissed the Application pursuant to section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Tribunal determined that the Application had been filed outside the limitation period and that the applicant had not established that the delay in filing was in good faith, within the meaning of the Code.

2On November 8, 2010, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration (“Request”) and submissions in support of the Request. A 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 respondent.

3Section 45.7 of the 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.

4Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of its case. In this regard, it is helpful 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.

5The applicant argues that the Decision ought to be reconsidered because there are factors in this case that outweigh the public interest in the finality of the Tribunal’s Decision. The applicant states that she genuinely did not know that she could have filed an Application while her grievance was ongoing. She states that it took her several days to complete the paperwork associated with the Application. She reiterates the argument that the date of the arbitration hearing ought to be considered as the last incident of alleged discrimination and urges the Tribunal to consider her case, whatever the delay, because the case raises important facts and issues.

6The term “good faith”, as it is used in the Code, has a somewhat different meaning from how that term may be used in other contexts. The Tribunal does not dispute that the applicant may genuinely have believed that she could not pursue an Application before the conclusion of the grievance process. However, as I indicated in the Decision, this belief (even if it was in good faith in the sense that it was genuine) does not constitute a good faith reason for the delay within the meaning of the Code and the Tribunal’s case law interpreting the Code.

7The thrust of the applicant’s other submissions essentially reiterates arguments she had already made. While it is evident that the applicant disagrees with the Decision and is troubled by the Tribunal’s finding, she has presented no basis to reconsider the Decision.

8The Request for Reconsideration is denied.