Jerry Schram v. Avon-Maitland District School Board and David MacLennan, 2010 HRTO 841

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jerry Schram

Applicant

-and-

Avon-Maitland District School Board and David MacLennan

Respondents

reconsideration DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: April 16, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 841

Indexed as: Schram v. Avon-Maitland District School Board

1This Decision addresses a request for reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Case Resolution Conference Decision dismissing the Application.

2On February 9, 2010 the applicant filed a request for reconsideration under section 45.7 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”).

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.

3The Tribunal’s Rules for Transitional Applications provide that any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal. 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.

4The applicant states that there is new evidence that could be potentially determinative of the Application that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier and that ignoring this evidence would seriously undermine the administration of justice. The applicant relies upon an affidavit of the proposed witness setting out his evidence.

5The evidence of the potential witness although material and relevant to some of the issues in the Application is not, in my view, potentially determinative of the Application. Moreover, I am not satisfied that this evidence could not have been tendered at the hearing. The proposed witness is a friend and former colleague of the applicant. He could have and should have given his evidence at the hearing. Contrary to the applicant’s submission, to re-open the hearing in these circumstances would undermine the Tribunal’s process and the public interest in the finality of its decisions.

6The request for reconsideration is denied.