HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Vannak Troeung
Applicant
-and-
St. Michael’s Hospital
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Alan G. Smith
Indexed as: Troeung v. St. Michael’s Hospital
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Vannak Troeung, Applicant ) Self-represented
INTRODUCTION
1The applicant filed the Application on June 29, 2011, under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”), which alleged that the respondent employer discriminated against him because of his sexual orientation.
2On August 12, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Decision, 2011 HRTO 1509, finding that the Application alleged incidents of discrimination which occurred beyond the Code’s one year limitation period and therefore fails to raise matters over which the Tribunal has jurisdiction (the power to decide). The August 12, 2011 Decision notes an absence of any evidence that the delay was incurred in good faith. The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of that Decision on September 8, 2011.
3In his Request for Reconsideration, the applicant requested the Tribunal reconsider its decision to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on, among other things, the following grounds:
The College of Medical Laboratory Technologists of Ontario (“CMLTO”) requires that “Employers are required to file a report with the CMLTO if they terminate an MLT’s employment…for reasons of incompetence...the Respondent hospital has not filed a mandatory report regarding the termination of my employment…Absence in filing a mandatory report is evidence that contradicts and refutes the Respondent hospital’s claim that my, “skill set as a Lab Technologist do not meet our current or future needs”, which was the reason the Respondent gave in the termination of my employment…
4It is not clear how the respondent’s alleged failure to file a report relates to the issue of delay and the applicant has not provided any explanation in this regard. In essence, the applicant’s submissions with respect to reconsideration fail to address the delay issue and instead re-argue the substance of the Application with respect to the Respondent’s alleged violation of the Code.
ANALYSIS
5Section 45.7 of the Code allows any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal to request a reconsideration of its decision. The Tribunal Rules of Procedure elaborate on the conditions and requirements of such a request. Pursuant to Rule 26.5, 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.
6It is also useful to consider the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration, which 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.
7The applicant appears to be raising new facts and issues, but none of the new submissions have any relevance to the issue of delay and hence do not engage Rule 26.5 (a).
8In such decisions as Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34; LaFortune v. Washington Mills Electro Minerals, 2009 HRTO 1706; Burns v. Employer’s Choice Staffing of Canada, 2009 HRTO 1779; and Winterburn v. General Motors of Canada, 2011 HRTO 1053, the Tribunal stated that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case. 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 very limited exceptions.
9The applicant has failed to meet the criteria set out in Rule 26.5. The Request for Reconsideration fails to address the jurisdictional issue which was the reason for the dismissal of the Application. At its core, the Request for Reconsideration is therefore an attempt by the applicant to re-argue his case and appeal the Tribunal’s decision.
ORDER
10The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 31st day of October, 2011.
”signed by”___________
Alan G. Smith
Member