Davies Koech v. Cargill Limited et al., 2010 HRTO 843

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Davies Koech

Applicant

-and-

Cargill Limited, Doug Hayes, Lorri Allard and Tracy Barker

Respondents

AND BETWEEN:

Davies Koech

Applicant

-and-

United Food & Commercial Workers Canada, Locals 175 and 633,

Richard Wauhkonen and John Christopher Watson

Respondents

Reconsideration decision

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: April 16, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 843

Indexed as: Koech v. Cargill

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

2On February 25, 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’s request does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 25.5. The only submission of the applicant is that some of my findings of fact are inconsistent with the ultimate conclusion reached, that the respondent union’s decision to not proceed with his grievance was not discriminatory. They are not, but in any event that is not a basis for reconsideration of a final decision.

5The request for reconsideration is denied.