HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Ronald Sauve
Applicant
-and-
Ininew Friendship Centre
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: David A. Wright
Date: June 30, 2011
Citation: 2011 HRTO 1260
Indexed as: Sauve v. Ininew Friendship Centre
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Ronald Sauve, Applicant ) Self-Represented
[1] This is a Request for Reconsideration by the applicant of the Tribunal’s Decision dismissing these Applications: 2010 HRTO 720. The Request was filed on April 21, 2010, and as a result of an administrative error, no decision was issued until now. The Tribunal regrets the delay.
[2] Rule 25.5 sets out the limited circumstances in which reconsideration may be granted:
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.
[3] Reconsideration is not an appeal but is granted in extremely limited circumstances. The applicant relies upon Rule 25.5 (a). He takes issue with various findings of fact by the adjudicator and the inferences drawn from those facts. However, he does not raise any new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case, nor does he refer to any new evidence that could not have reasonably been obtained earlier.
[4] The applicant focuses, in particular, on the fact that his Court action for constructive dismissal was successful. The Court’s decision was rendered orally and there was a subsequent written Ruling on Costs and Damages: see Sauve v. Ininew Frienship [sic] Centre, 2010 CanLII 57078. It is not clear whether the oral decision was rendered before or after the Tribunal hearing.
[5] The applicant notes that the Tribunal adjudicator referred, in para. 7, to the fact that the applicant filed a resignation letter and states that the Court’s decision suggests that he was “under duress” to do so because of his constructive dismissal. The Court’s conclusion has no effect on the Tribunal’s determinations. The issue in the Tribunal Applications was whether the applicant experienced discrimination with respect to employment when he was not the successful candidate for various positions, and whether the respondent had a valid defence under s. 14 of the Code. The mere fact that certain of the respondent’s actions were found to amount to constructive dismissal without reasonable notice at common law does not affect the conclusion that the applicant was not discriminated against on the basis of race, contrary to the Code. The Court proceeding did not address the issue before the Tribunal: whether the job competitions and the respondent’s hiring practices violated the Code.
[6] The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 30th day of June, 2011.
“Signed by”
David A. Wright
Associate Chair