HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
James Ellis and the Applicants listed on Schedule "A"
Applicants
-and-
Petro-Canada Inc.
Respondent
Interim Decision
Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim
TR-0584-09; TR-0585-09; TR-0617-09; TR-0618-09; TR-0623-09; TR-0626-09; TR-0632-09; TR-0652-09; TR-0688-09; TR-0695-09; TR-0699-09; TR-0712-09; TR-0716-09; TR-0759-09; TR-0763-09
Indexed as: Ellis v. Petro-Canada
INTRODUCTION
1This Decision addresses a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 2499. I had proceeded to hear the evidence of the lead applicant, Robert Waddell, together with the evidence of the Commission investigator, and the respondent’s evidence regarding the plant closure and the on-line application process, and issued an Interim Decision.
2In that Interim Decision I concluded at paragraph 66 that:
At the end of the day, I am unable to conclude that the applicant has established on a balance of probabilities that his disability played a role in his performance assessment or placement on the ranking list and therefore indirectly played a role in his failing to be hired as a Terminal Technician. Although I recognize the possibility that disability may have played a subconscious factor in the performance rating and ranking, this mere possibility does not rise to the necessary standard of proof on a balance of probabilities. I am leaving open the possibility that this conclusion may change for Mr. Waddell or for the other applicants upon hearing the evidence of the remaining applicants.
3As noted above I confirmed that it remained open to me, after hearing the remaining evidence, to make a finding of discrimination against the respondent in respect of Mr. Waddell and the remaining applicants. Therefore, the Interim Decision was not a final decision.
4On October 1, 2010, the applicant 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.
5Rule 25 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure for Transitional Applications provides any party may request reconsideration within 30 days of the date of the decision. Rule 25.1 provides that a party may request reconsideration of a final 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.
6In Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34, the Tribunal determined that an Interim Decision may be "final" for the purpose of a reconsideration request if it disposes of some or all of central issues in the Application.
7In accordance with a process directed by myself and agreed to by the parties, I heard the evidence of the Commission investigator, the applicant and the respondent’s evidence in respect of the applicant Waddell. I issued an Interim Decision weighing the evidence heard thus far and giving my conclusions based on that evidence. It remains open to me to reconsider the significance of my conclusions in light of the evidence of the remaining applicants.
8This was clearly an Interim Decision and is not subject to reconsideration.
9The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 8th day of February, 2011.
"Signed by"
Kaye Joachim
Member
Schedule "A"
APPLICANTS
RESPONDENTS
James Ellis
T-0190-08
Petro-Canada Inc.
Kevin Howard Lowe
T-0741-08
Petro-Canada Inc.
Frank Kasmara
TR-0511-09
Petro-Canada Inc.
William Brown
TR-0580-09
Petro-Canada Inc.
Robert Paterson
TR-0582-09
Petro-Canada Inc.
Richard Kelso
TR-0584-09
Petro-Canada Inc.
George Heelis
TR-0585-09
Petro-Canada Inc.
Thomas Saunders
TR-0617-09
Petro-Canada Inc.
Robert Waddell
TR-0618-09
Petro-Canada Inc.
Radcliffe Meikle
TR-0623-09
Petro-Canada Inc.
William Michaluk
TR-0626-09
Petro-Canada Inc.
Steven Bowie
TR-0632-09
Petro-Canada Inc.
Helen Solski
TR-0652-09
Petro-Canada Inc.
Susan Cassady
TR-0688-09
Petro-Canada Inc.
Robert March
TR-0695-09
Petro-Canada Inc.
Dennis Reeves
TR-0699-09
Petro-Canada Inc.
Morris Kocken
TR-0712-09
Petro-Canada Inc.
Richard Dimock
TR-0716-09
Petro-Canada Inc.
William Rainey
TR-0759-09
Petro-Canada Inc.
Robert Kreuger
TR-0763-09
Petro-Canada Inc.