Le Blanc v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2012 HRTO 1233

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Michael Le Blanc

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Transit Commission

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: June 22, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1233

Indexed as: Le Blanc v. Toronto Transit Commission

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Michael Le Blanc, Applicant

Self-represented

1The applicant requests Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision of April 2, 2012, 2012 HRTO 673 dismissing this Application pursuant to section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) because the applicant commenced a civil action suit based on the same facts and allegations and sought human rights remedies.

2The circumstances in which reconsideration may be granted are set out in Rule 26.5:

26.5 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.

3The 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.

4The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration on April 16, 2012 and relies upon Rule 26.5(c). In support of the Request, the applicant submitted that the civil action was primarily based on the respondent’s failure to follow policy regarding progressive discipline and failure to provide pay in lieu of notice. The Application, submitted the applicant, was based on the respondent’s failure to accommodate a recognized disability.

5As noted in the Decision, the respondent filed a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking dismissal of the Application pursuant to section 34(11) of the Code, and the applicant did not file a Response to Request for Order to oppose that request. The applicant provided no explanation for this failure. The applicant could have and should have responded to the Request for Order, as required by the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The parties made many Requests for Order in the course of this Application; therefore, it was a process with which the applicant was well acquainted or should have been. As noted in the Practice Direction on Reconsideration, reconsideration is not an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of its case, which in my view includes failure to make submissions at all. Reconsideration is not a second opportunity to present one’s case.

6The applicant did not point to any decision that would indicate that the decision is in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure or provide any reason to conclude that the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance. Accordingly there is no basis for granting reconsideration pursuant to Rule 26.5(c). In any event, I remain of the view that the Application was properly dismissed under section 34(11), as set out in the Decision.

7The applicant provided no reason to conclude that compelling and extraordinary circumstances exist that would call for reconsideration of the decision to dismiss this Application.

8The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.