HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Romeo Romo
Applicant
-and-
Raynor Canada Inc. o/a Richard-Wilcox Canada,
Robert Hampson, Ulises Fernandez and Charles Dudley
Respondents
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Mark Hart
Indexed as: Romo v. Raynor Canada
1This Decision addresses a request for reconsideration by the applicant in relation to the Tribunal’s Decision, dated October 26, 2009 dismissing the Application (2009 HRTO 1773).
2On October 31, 2009, the applicant filed a Request for reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision.
3Section 45.7 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended (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.
4Under 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).
5The 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.
6As 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.
7In 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.
8The 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.
9As 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.
10While the applicant purports to rely upon all of the criteria under Rule 25.5, in reality he takes issue with the evidence I heard at the hearing and that I reviewed in detail in my decision. The applicant reiterates his evidence that he told Mr. Ioi before March 25, 2008 that he had changed his mind about the settlement and denies that he left a further voicemail message on April 1, 2008 saying that he had changed his mind because he had already said this to Mr. Ioi.
11As I discuss in my Decision, the applicant’s evidence flies in the face of the record made by Mr. Ioi at the time which records that Mr. Ioi spoke to the applicant on March 22, 2008 and the applicant said that he was having second thoughts, and that the applicant did leave a voicemail message on April 1, 2008 saying that he had changed his mind about the process.
12The applicant states in his reconsideration request that he wants to hear directly from Mr. Ioi on the issue of the content of his memo. This memo was received by the Tribunal the previous afternoon and efforts were made to immediately disclose it to the parties in advance of the hearing. The applicant did not receive the memo until the morning of the hearing, but was given a full opportunity to review the memo and provide his evidence in response. At that time, the applicant did not request that Mr. Ioi be called as a witness in the proceeding.
13The Request for reconsideration is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 10^th^ day of February, 2010.
“Signed by”
Mark Hart
Vice-chair