Watson v. T. Boudreau Construction, 2010 HRTO 657

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Rodger Watson

Applicant

-and-

T. Boudreau Construction Inc. o/a Courtice Roofing

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Sheehan

Date: March 25, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 657

Indexed as: Watson v. T. Boudreau Construction

1The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal Decision 2009 HRTO 643 pursuant to section 45.7 of the Ontario Human Rights Code R.S.O. 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 based upon Rule 25.5 (c).

5The applicant’s submissions failed to establish that the Tribunal’s Decision is in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure. The fact the Packman–Wallace v. Subway Store #14207, 2009 HRTO 729 case, referred to in the Tribunal’s Decision, was decided without a hearing, has no bearing whatsoever on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in this matter. Moreover, the Tribunal’s reliance on that case does not suggest, in any manner, that its Decision is in conflict with established jurisprudence or procedure. To the contrary, it suggests the Tribunal’s Decision was in keeping with established jurisprudence.

6The observation of the Tribunal that the respondent employer had initially expressed a hesitancy to re-employ the applicant is not inconsistent with the ultimate conclusion reached that the respondent had not violated section 5 of the Code. A Request for Reconsideration is not a right of appeal. The applicant’s view that certain aspects of the Tribunal’s review of the evidence was in error is not relevant in itself, with respect to a Request for Reconsideration. For the Tribunal to grant reconsideration, the specific language of Rule 25.5 has to be satisfied.

7Finally there is no basis to suggest that the Reconsideration of this matter constitutes a matter of general or public importance.

8Accordingly the Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.