HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Sharon Johnson
Applicant
-and-
Virginia Agacaoili, Chris Robinson and Leonie Maguire
Respondents
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Andrew M. Diamond
Indexed as: Johnson v. Agacaoili
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY
Virginia Agacaoili, Chris Robinson and ) Sven Poysa, Leonie Maguire, Respondents ) Counsel )
[1] This Decision addresses a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision 2009 HRTO 2103, dated December 3, 2009 inter alia determining that these proceedings were not stayed as against the individual respondents.
[2] On January 4, 2010, the respondents 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.
3Under section 45.7 of the Code, the Tribunal may, at the request of a party or on its own initiative, reconsider a final decision in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules. The Tribunal has issued rules governing such requests as well as a Practice Direction to provide guidance to the community on the Tribunal’s exercise of its reconsideration powers (Practice Direction on Reconsideration, January 2008, amended June 2008).
4The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration begins with the following statements:
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. (emphasis added)
5The complaint filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission on February 25, 2008, and abandoned upon filing the present Application December 12, 2008, alleges that the respondents discriminated against her in her place of employment on the basis of colour, ethnic origin, place of origin and race.
ANALYSIS
Corporate Respondent
6For the sake of clarity, my previous decisions have made it clear that there is no Application as against the corporate respondent before the Tribunal. As I said in my previous decision:
Absent an order of the Ontario Superior Court lifting the stay and approving the application nunc pro tunc; there is currently no valid Application against the corporate respondent before the Tribunal.
Individual Respondents
7The applicant submitted that:
(a) there were facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case that were not addressed in the stay decisions;
(b) the Stay Decisions are in conflict with the established jurisprudence involving a matter of general importance; and
(c) other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.
8However, none of the submissions of the individual respondents address the fact that the determination that the stay does not cover the individual respondents is not a final decision in this Application, it is interlocutory, and therefore the individual respondents do not have an ability to have that decision reconsidered.
DECISION
9As a result, the Reconsideration Request with respect to the stay preventing the applicant from proceeding against the individual respondents is therefore dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 5th day of May, 2010.
“Signed by”
Andrew M. Diamond
Member