HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Iain Rousay

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Labour (Ontario Labour Relations Board)

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: July 20, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1425

Indexed as: Rousay v. Ontario (Labour)

APPEARANCES

Iain Rousay, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services and facilities because of age, citizenship, ethnic origin, race, reprisal and sex.

2On July 12, 2012 the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of 2012 HRTO 1162 (the ”Decision”) wherein I dismissed his Application on the basis that the doctrine of judicial immunity applied to the circumstances alleged in the Application

3The central allegation of the applicant was that an official of the respondent deliberately and in bad faith provided advice that caused him to withdraw his application at the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB).The applicant’s allegation all relate to the conduct of an official of the OLRB including what the applicant characterizes as a ruling made by the named individual in what the applicant describes as a hearing.

4Section 45.7 of the Ontario 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.

5The Tribunal’s Rules for Transitional Applications provide that any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal. Rule 25.5 of the Rules for Transitional Applications 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 his Request, the applicant makes no reference to any of the grounds for reconsideration cited above. It appears that the content of the Request is comprised of portions of the Application cut and paste into the Request Form 26. The only submission the respondent appears to make is repeated at points throughout the Request: How did David Muir, Human Rights Tribunal miss this?; followed by another portion of the original Application. The applicant does in any way address the basis for the Decision that was made, that the doctrine of judicial immunity applied to the circumstances the applicant complained of.

7The applicant evidently disagrees with the conclusions I reached in the Decision, however that is not a proper basis for reconsideration of a final Decision. The Request for reconsideration is dismissed.