Tulloch v. Phelps Apartment Laundries, 2010 HRTO 956

1The applicant requests reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision in this matter, 2010 HRTO 550. The Application was dismissed on the basis that the applicant had not proven that his race, colour, or religion was a factor in his dismissal from employment with the respondent.

2The applicant seeks reconsideration on the basis that there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier, pursuant to Rule 26.5 (a). He states that after he was terminated, the respondent hired a new service person rather than recalling the applicant, who, his manager testified, was considered a good employee.

3The Request for Reconsideration is denied. This is not evidence that “could not reasonably have been obtained earlier” and the applicant provides no explanation for why he did not call evidence about this matter or cross-examine the respondent’s witness about it. Moreover, it is not evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case, as there may be various non-discriminatory reasons for any such decision by the respondent.