Latronico v. York Region District School Board, 2011 HRTO 1268

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Vincenzo Latronico

Applicant

-and-

York Region District School Board,

Isagani Paz, David Lutz, and Dan Hunter

Respondents

AND B E T W E E N:

Vincenzo Latronico

Applicant

-and-

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1196

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Hinchman

Date: July 5, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1268

Indexed as: Latronico v. York Region District School Board

1This Decision addresses 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") of the Tribunal's Decision, 2011 HRTO 985, dismissing TR-0297-09, an application against the Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 1196, and dismissing some of the allegations in TR-0354-09, an application against York Region District School Board and three individual respondents. The Decision addressed the respondents' motion that the Applications be dismissed following the applicant's evidence for lack of prima facie case. A hearing has been scheduled for September 28 and 29, 2011 to hear the respondents' evidence on the remaining allegations.

2Rule 25 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure for Transitional Applications provides that any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within 30 days of the date of the decision. Rule 25.5 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.

3In his Request, the applicant argues that points a, c, and d above warrant a reconsideration of my Decision. Furthermore, in his request the applicant cites as support an earlier request that he made that I recuse myself for bias. In Interim Decision 2010 HRTO 2497 finding no basis for the claim of bias, I refused that request.

4On my review of the Request, I am not satisfied that any of the criteria supporting reconsideration of the Decision have been established.

5For the most part, the applicant argues that I have not appropriately considered tapes that he recorded of various conversations with co-workers, management, and the union that he claims establish his allegations in both Applications. The applicant prepared his own transcription of those recordings, which he also submitted to the Tribunal. He also called four of the co-workers as witnesses. In his Request, the applicant complains that I have not adequately detailed all of the taped conversations in my Decision nor have I appropriately assessed the credibility of his witnesses who he asserts did not tell the truth.

6Furthermore, the applicant asserts that I did not consider certain evidence regarding a union representative, Mr. Botts. The statement identified in this Request was in fact part of the applicant's evidence and was considered.

7In making my Decision I considered all the applicant's evidence and the credibility of his witnesses. The applicant's written submissions were lengthy and although I considered all of his submissions, in my reasons where appropriate I categorized this voluminous material when explaining my findings. The applicant has not raised any new facts. He merely repeats submissions that he already made at the Hearing, which he argues are in conflict with my findings.

8A request for reconsideration is not an opportunity to restate or re-argue evidence already advanced and considered. See Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34. Once the parties to an application have had the opportunity to present their evidence and arguments to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal has made a decision disposing of the issues, parties are entitled to treat the matter as closed, subject to limited exceptions.

9The applicant also asserts that with respect to a preliminary finding that I made regarding whether or not the respondents had destroyed or withheld evidence he has new evidence that the respondents' witnesses Mr. McPeak and Mr. Souvran were untruthful in their testimony to the Tribunal. The applicant has not presented any new evidence, and is once again rearguing this matter. The applicant claims that I have not yet addressed his earlier Request for an Order that the Tribunal charge these two individuals with perjury. During the proceedings the applicant sent an email to the Tribunal making this request. At the next hearing date, I explained to the applicant that the Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to charge individuals with perjury and the applicant acknowledged my observation.

10Finally, the applicant also appears to object to findings that I have not yet made referring to whether or not personal respondent Mr. Paz made sexual advances towards the applicant. This allegation was not dismissed in my Decision and the respondents' evidence will be heard when the Hearing continues in September 2011.

11The applicant asserts that the Decision involves the following matter of public importance, which he states represents a circumstance that outweighs the public interest in the finality of decisions:

Thousands of children are at risk due to the covering up of a violent assault and sexual harassment by Anti-Italian Racists that are employed by the School Board.

Whether thousands of children are at risk was never part of the applicant's Applications and far exceeds the scope of those Applications. Whether or not sexual harassment or racial discrimination occurred were allegations that have been dealt with, in part, by my Decision and will be the subject matter in part of the continued Hearing.

12Reconsideration is a discretionary remedy; there is no right to have a decision reconsidered by the Tribunal. The issues raised by the applicant challenging the merits of my Decision are not compelling or extraordinary. They do not raise issues of general importance nor outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions. The applicant has not cited any established case law or Tribunal procedure that the Decision conflicts with. The applicant's disagreement with the conclusions that I drew from the evidence is not a basis for reconsideration.

13The Request does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 25.5. The Request for Reconsideration is denied.