Ridha Bin Slama v. Certified Management Accountants of Ontario, 2012 HRTO 1745

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ridha Bin Slama

Applicant

-and-

Certified Management Accountants of Ontario

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: September 14, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1745

Indexed as: Bin Slama v. Certified Management Accountants of Ontario

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Ridha Bin Slama, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1On September 2, 2012 the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of 2012 HRTO 1027, dated May 22, 2012 (the Decision) pursuant to section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). In the Decision I dismissed the Application in which the applicant alleged discrimination with respect to vocational associations because of race, ethnic origin, place of origin, creed and reprisal.

2Under section 45.7 of the Code, the Tribunal may, at the request of a party or on its own initiative, reconsider its decisions in accordance with Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.

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 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). Most relevant to this Decision is Rule 26 which states:

26.1 Any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within (thirty) 30 days of the date of the decision

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.

4The 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.

5As 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.

6This Request was filed on September 9, 2012. The Decision was released on May 25, 2012. The applicant submits that the extensive delay was caused by his need to consult legal counsel. Although the delay is an extensive one I have exercised my discretion to deal with the Request.

7I find that the applicant has not the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration.

8In his Request the applicant asserts that the Decision is not consistent with Tribunal jurisprudence and that other factors are present which outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decision making. Although these are the factors the applicant points to, none of his submissions directly address either of them.

9In support of its Request, the applicant essentially repeats arguments made orally before the Tribunal. It is important to note that the issues raised in this Request were the subject of submissions before the Tribunal, and dealt with in its Decision. In Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2010 HRTO 202, above, 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.

10. The applicant made no submissions on the point but in any event I am not convinced that any findings made in the Decision are in conflict with established jurisprudence. The 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 the conclusions of the Tribunal, I am satisfied that his submissions do not establish that the Tribunal’s Decision conflicts with established jurisprudence.

11In sum, I find that the applicant has not established the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26 that would lead to reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision. The Request is denied.