Orlowski v. Apotex, 2010 HRTO 861

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Andrzej Orlowski Applicant

-and-

Apotex Inc. Respondent

RECONSIDERATION Decision

Adjudicator: Caroline Rowan Date: April 19, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 861 Indexed as: Orlowski v. Apotex

1The applicant requests reconsideration as provided for in section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), of the Tribunal's decision dismissing this Application on the basis of delay of approximately four years: Orlowski v. Apotex, 2010 HRTO 527 (the "Decision"). The basis of the request is that there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier; that the decision is in conflict with established case law or Tribunal Procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance; and that other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

2Section 45.7 and 45.8 of the Code provide the Tribunal with authority to reconsider its decisions while confirming the finality of the Tribunal decisions:

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.

45.8 Subject to section 45.6 of this Act, section 21.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Tribunal rules, a decision of the Tribunal is final and not subject to appeal and shall not be altered or set aside in an application for judicial review or in any other proceeding unless the decision is patently unreasonable.

3Further to its powers to make rules, the Tribunal has issued rules governing Requests for Reconsideration as well as a Practice Direction to provide guidance to the community on the Tribunal's exercise of its reconsideration powers (Practice Direction #4 Reconsideration).

4The Tribunal's Rules include the following provisions relevant to the present Request for Reconsideration:

25.1 Any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within thirty (30) days from the date of the decision.

25.3 A request for reconsideration must include:

(a) reasons for the request, including the basis on which the Tribunal is asked to grant the request for reconsideration;

(b) submissions in support of the request; and

(c) the remedy or relief sought.

25.5 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;

(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;

(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 and orders.

5Practice Direction #4 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 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.

6In the present case, the applicant's Request for Reconsideration consists of approximately 252 pages of submissions and documents in support of his Request. Much of those submissions, however, reiterate the substance of the applicant's complaint against the respondent and do not address the preliminary issue dealt with in the Decision. The applicant also reiterates his view, which he expressed in his earlier submissions filed with the Tribunal, that there is a criminal conspiracy in which the respondent's agents have infiltrated key government agencies, such as the Workers' Compensation Board, the Ombudsman's Office and the Ontario Labour Relations Board. The only basis suggested for these allegations appears to be the fact that various government agencies have not made decisions in his favour as it relates to his complaint against the respondent.

7In his Request for Reconsideration, the applicant also now adds his perception that I am part of the alleged conspiracy in that I am somehow complicit in the delay associated with the filing of his original complaint at the Commission. His unsubstantiated perception in that regard is not however a basis for reconsidering the Decision dismissing his Application due to his delay in filing his complaint with the Commission. With respect to the issue of delay, the applicant also essentially re-argues the submissions he made earlier in respect of the preliminary issue based on the same facts referred to in his earlier submissions. To the extent that the applicant refers to additional facts, which were not referred to in his earlier submissions, there is nothing in his Request for Reconsideration to suggest that those facts could not reasonably have been obtained earlier.

8Having carefully reviewed the applicant's submissions filed in support of his Request for Reconsideration, I find that none of the circumstances set out in Rule 25.5 are present. More specifically, the applicant has not presented any new facts or evidence which could not have reasonably been obtained earlier, nor did he identify any case law indicating that the Tribunal's Decision is in conflict with established jurisprudence. Finally, the applicant's submissions filed in support of this Request do not indicate that other factors exist in the present case, which outweigh the finality of Tribunal decisions. Reconsideration is not an opportunity for a party to reargue the case, nor is it available simply because a party disagrees with the decision in question.

9For these reasons, the Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.