Garett Bridgman v. 2035534 Ontario Ltd o/a Rivard Cleaners and Wook Seck Seo, 2011 HRTO 489

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Garett Bridgman Applicant

-and-

2035534 Ontario Ltd o/a Rivard Cleaners and Wook Seck Seo Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Andrew M. Diamond Date: March 9, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 489 Indexed as: Bridgman v. 2035534 Ontario

Reasons for Decision

1The applicant has 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") of my Decision 2009 HRTO 1153.

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.

2The applicant was successful on his Application and was awarded compensation for lost income as well as compensation for the violation of his Code protected rights.

3The applicant sets out two grounds for reconsideration. He claims the respondents failed to produce evidence to support the finding there was a decrease in business that necessitated layoffs of employees. He also takes issue with the amount of monetary compensation awarded.

4The Tribunal has issued Rules governing such requests as well as a Practice Direction to provide guidance to the community on the Tribunal's exercise of its reconsideration powers (Practice Direction on Reconsideration, January 2008 amended June 2008).

5Rule 25.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure for Transitional Applications states:

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 decision

6The Tribunal's Practice Direction on Reconsideration begins with the following statements:

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.

Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of its case.

7As is evident from the above, reconsideration is a discretionary remedy. That is, while the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to reopen and reconsider its own decisions, it is not obliged to do so. It may decide when reconsideration is advisable, both through the promulgation of rules setting out conditions for the exercise of its discretion, and through the application of its discretion on a case-by-case basis.

8I find that the applicant has not met the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration.

9In support of the Request, the applicant essentially repeats arguments made before the Tribunal. The respondents disclosed records to the applicant and these records were before me. I also heard the oral testimony that the business was in decline. The applicant had full opportunity to challenge the respondents' evidence on this point.

10In Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34, the Tribunal stated that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case. Once the parties 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. I find that the submissions in this Request amount to additional argument on issues already fully canvassed before the Tribunal.

11The Tribunal also stated in Sigrist and Carson that a "conflict with established jurisprudence or procedure" requires (at a minimum) that there be a settled understanding about the legal rules that apply, and a clear and surprising departure from those legal rules. While the applicant clearly disagrees with my conclusions, nothing in the Request supports finding that the amount of monetary compensation awarded is in conflict with established jurisprudence.

12For all of these reasons the Request is dismissed.