Grant v. Bombardier Inc., 2012 HRTO 1536

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Malcolm Grant

Applicant

-and-

Bombardier Inc.

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright Date: August 8, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1536 Indexed as: Grant v. Bombardier Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Malcolm Grant, Applicant

Self-represented

Bombardier Inc., Respondent

Caroline Picard, Counsel

1The applicant seeks reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision dismissing his Application on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success, 2012 HRTO 578. The summary hearing was conducted in writing at the applicant’s request.

2The applicant relies upon Rule 26.5 (b), (c) and (d) which read as follows:

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.

3First, the applicant submits that his Request for Reconsideration should be allowed because the respondent did not respond to his Request for Order During Proceedings dated February 28, 2012, which requested that the respondent’s submissions subsequent to its initial response should be struck. The applicant states that “I do not know in what manner my Request for an Order was heard and do not know how the hearing proceeded and do not know how the Adjudicator arrived at his conclusions and I was not offered the opportunity of reply and rebuttal because I did not receive a notice of the proceeding or a hearing.”

4The respondent did not file a Response to the Request for Order, and therefore the Request was clearly dealt with on the sole basis of the applicant’s written submissions; see the Decision at paras. 5 and 17-19. The Tribunal’s Rules and the instructions on the Form 10 make it clear that a Request for Order may be dealt with on the basis of the Form 10 alone. There is no basis to find that the applicant did not receive notice of any hearing; the issue was determined under the Rules based upon his written submissions.

5Second, the applicant alleges that the respondents’ counsel was not permitted to practice law in Ontario as she is a member of the Quebec bar. This submission is rejected. Counsel for the respondent, who is in-house counsel, falls within section 30(1) of Law Society of Upper Canada By-law 4, which reads in relevant part as follows, and permits her to make submissions before this Tribunal:

30. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the following may, without a licence, provide legal services in Ontario that a licensee who holds a Class P1 licence is authorized to provide:

31. An individual who,

i. is employed by a single employer that is not a licensee or a licensee firm,

ii. provides the legal services only for and on behalf of the employer, and

iii. does not provide any legal services to any person other than the employer.

6Third, the applicant argues that the Tribunal made various errors in its application of the test for no reasonable prospect of success and in the directions that were given on the summary hearing. It is well established that a reconsideration request is not an appeal, and the applicant has not provided any basis to show that any alleged errors in this case are matters of general or public importance or outweigh the public interest in the finality of decisions.

7Finally, the applicant alleges that Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure violates s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 7 reads as follows:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

8For s. 7 of the Charter to apply, it must be found that Rule 19A deprives the applicant of life, liberty or security of the person within the meaning of this term. The applicant alleges that the result of him not obtaining a position from the respondent is that he is driving a taxi in Toronto, and that this causes a risk to his life, liberty, and security of the person. He argues that there is a sufficient connection between Rule 19A and the deprivation of these rights, relying on, among other cases, Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 SCC 1, and Canada (Prime Minister) v. Khadr, 2010 SCC 3.

9The applicant has not shown that Rule 19A affects his life, liberty, or security of the person within the meaning of s. 7 of the Charter. There is no connection between any deprivation of life, liberty or security of the person and Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. This is a case in which the Tribunal found that the applicant’s Application alleging he was not considered for jobs with the respondent because of age or reprisal had no reasonable prospect of success. Rule 19A does not require or lead directly or indirectly to the applicant’s job of driving a taxi, even assuming the risks relied upon by the applicant about this work are assumed to be true.

10In summary, the applicant has not shown a basis for reconsideration under any of the criteria under Rule 19A, and his submissions amount, in essence, to disagreement with the Tribunal’s processing of and decisions on his case. This is not a basis to grant reconsideration. The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.