Caroline Covell v. Robert Half International Inc. and Kelly Graham, 2010 HRTO 773

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Caroline Covell

Applicant

-and-

Robert Half International Inc. and Kelly Graham

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: April 7, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 773

Indexed as: Covell v. Robert Half International

INTRODUCTION

1The applicant filed an Application on August 20, 2008, under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging the respondents discriminated against her on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, ethnic origin and age in employment. On February 16, 2010, following a hearing, the Tribunal issued a Decision, 2010 HRTO 347, dismissing the Application (the “Decision”).

2On February 23, 2010, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration (“the Request”) asking the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision. Pursuant to Rule 26.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules, a respondent is not required to respond to a Request for Reconsideration unless directed to do so by the Tribunal. In the circumstances, the Tribunal did not deem it necessary to seek submissions from the respondents.

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

3Section 45.7 of the Code allows any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal to request it reconsider its decision. The Rues 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 exit that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

4It is also useful 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 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.

5In the Request, the applicant indicated that Rules 26.5(a), (c) and (d) apply. She alleges that the Decision was issued in the absence of truth and was not based on or made in the context of the Human Rights Act [sic] or the Code or was made in their absence. She alleges the Decision was based upon subjective narrative and individual observations made during the hearing, which was categorized as “Evidence” and is biased and not credible. She alleges that the “Material Facts”, “Real Evidence”, the laws and the submissions were not taken into consideration. She submits that while the Decision references caselaw, it is too “surface”, lacks credibility and depth analysis and was based upon a flawed analysis. There are expressions in the Decision that are inaccurate, “unreal” and “do not exist in reality”. The applicant seeks, as a remedy, $1,000,000.

6In her submissions, the applicant does not identify any new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier. While she has stated that the Decision is in conflict with established caselaw or Tribunal procedure, she has not referenced any caselaw or Tribunal procedure to support her submissions. She does not identify how the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance and does not describe the existence of other factors that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

7The applicant has not identified the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26 that would lead to reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision.

8The Request for Reconsideration is denied.