HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Michael Christianson
Applicant
-and-
Post Meridiem (P.M.) Plastics Ltd.
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta
Indexed as: Christianson v. Post Meridiem (P.M.) Plastics
introduction
1On October 19, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Decision in which it dismissed the Application because it had not been filed within one year of the last of a series of incidents and the Tribunal was not satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith (Christianson v. Post Meridiem (P.M.) Plastics, 2010 HRTO 1964). On November 18, 2010, the Applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of that decision and submissions in support of his Request.
2A respondent is not required to respond to a Request for Reconsideration unless directed to do so by the Tribunal. In the circumstances of this Request, the Tribunal did not deem it necessary to seek submissions from the respondent.
3The applicant filed an Application on November 2, 2009, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”), alleging that he experienced discrimination in employment, on the basis of disability, sex, sexual orientation, record of offences, association with a person identified by a Code protected ground and reprisal. The allegations concerned events that took place between October 23, 2000 and August 15, 2005, during the time that the applicant was employed by the respondent.
4In his Application, the applicant had listed November 14, 2008 as the last in a series of events of discrimination and in the body of the Application identified that date as “the last day that my previous employer would have been able to call me back to work”. However, there was a letter included in the Application, dated August 29, 2005, and other correspondence indicating that the applicant’s employment had been terminated on August 15, 2005.
5By way of a Case Assessment Direction, the Tribunal sought the parties’ submissions on the issue of delay. The Case Assessment Direction specifically asked that the applicant address the issue of why he believed, despite the apparent termination of employment on August 15, 2005, that he still had recall rights as of November 14, 2008, and why November 14, 2008 should be treated as the date of an incident of discrimination within the meaning of section 34.
6Having received and reviewed the submissions of the parties, the Tribunal found that there was nothing in the material submitted that established that the applicant had any recall rights as of November 14, 2008, and that the November 14, 2008 date could not be seen as the last in a series of incidents of discrimination.
7The Tribunal found that the Application had been filed more than four years after the employment relationship between the parties had ended. As the applicant had been active in pursuing litigation in a number of different venues in respect of his former employment with the respondent and had provided no reasons to conclude that this delay in pursuing his human rights application was incurred in good faith, the Application was dismissed.
8The applicant seeks reconsideration of the decision to dismiss his Application. This is the Tribunal’s decision on the Request for Reconsideration.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
9Section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990 c. H.19 (“Code”) allows any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal to request that it reconsider its decision. The Rules 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.
10It 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.
11In his Request for Reconsideration (Form 20), the applicant has checked all four boxes indicating that the reason for his Request is that there are new facts or evidence potentially determinative of the case that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier, he did not receive notice of the proceedings, that the decision is in conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure and the reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance.
12A Request for Reconsideration is not an opportunity to restate or re-argue a position already advanced and considered. In his Request, the applicant has made no relevant submissions that bear on the identified grounds for reconsideration or, indeed, on any of the criteria outlined in either Rule 26 or the Practice Direction on Reconsideration. The thrust of his submissions merely reiterate arguments made earlier in the process. It is evident that the applicant disagrees with the Tribunal’s finding. However, he has presented no basis to reconsider the decision.
13The Request for Reconsideration is denied.
Dated at Toronto this 22nd day of February, 2011.
“Signed by”
Jay Sengupta
Vice-chair