Vincent Sinclair v. Western Fair Association and Gary McRae, 2011 HRTO 648

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Vincent Sinclair

Applicant

-and-

Western Fair Association and Gary McRae

Respondents

reconsideration decision

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: April 5, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 648

Indexed as: Sinclair v. Western Fair

Reasons for Decision

1This Decision addresses the applicant’s Request for reconsideration dated March 14, 2011 of my Decision 2011 HRTO 326 dismissing the Application.

2Section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the Code), provides as follows:

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.

3The Tribunal’s Rules provide that a reconsideration request may be made in respect of a final decision of the Tribunal. Rule 25 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure for Transitional Applications provides any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within 30 days of the date of the Decision.

4Rule 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.

5None of the applicant’s submissions address any of the issues raised above. The applicant does suggest that I was biased in dealing with the matter but provides no basis for a reasonable apprehension of bias. It is evident from his submissions that the applicant disagrees with a number of findings of fact that I made based on the evidence presented and disagrees with my conclusions. However, this is not a proper basis to reconsider the Decision.

6Together with his submissions, the applicant provided additional evidence in the form of a newspaper article that was not presented at the hearing. Although not admissible, a review of the article provided indicates that it would not have altered the result.

7The Request for reconsideration is denied.