HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Jeff Wilson
Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Attorney General
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Eric Whist Date: October 10, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1912 Indexed as: Wilson v. Ontario (Attorney General)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Jeff Wilson, Applicant
Self-represented
1This Decision addresses a Request for Reconsideration (the “Request”) filed by the applicant in respect to an Interim Decision issued by Vice-chair Liang dated March 15, 2012, 2012 HRTO 538. Vice-chair Liang is no longer a member of the Tribunal and I will consider the applicant’s Request.
2The applicant filed his Request on October 4, 2012 under section 45.7 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended (the “Code”). Under section 45.7 of the Code the Tribunal may, at the request of a party or on its own initiative, reconsider a final decision in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.
3Rule 26.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within 30 days of the date of the Decision. Rule 26.5 provides that:
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 and orders.
4Under Rule 26.1, only “final” decisions can be subject to reconsideration. The Tribunal’s March 15, 2012 decision was an Interim Decision that followed a Summary Hearing of the Application held on March 13, 2012. Most Interim Decisions are not final. However, the Tribunal has determined that an Interim Decision may be a “final” decision where it disposes of some or all of the central issues in an application (see Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34).
5The Tribunal’s March 15, 2012 decision dismissed the applicant’s Application in relation to its allegations of discrimination based on race, ethnic origin, creed, and sexual orientation but determined that Application’s allegations of reprisal should continue to a hearing to be considered on their merits. I accept that the Tribunal’s March 15, 2012 Interim Decision is a “final” decision under Rule 26.
6Rule 26(1) requires that a request for reconsideration be filed within 30 days of the date of the decision. The applicant’s Request is made 202 days after the Tribunal’s March 15, 2012 decision. The applicant’s explanations for the delay in filing his Request was that he did not appreciate the ramifications of the March 15, 2012 decision for his hearing scheduled for November 1, 2012 to consider his allegations of reprisal. He submits that he now realizes that he should have provided more detail during his Summary Hearing on March 13, 2012 suggesting, it appears, that if he had done so the Tribunal may have arrived at a different decision. He notes that he was and continues to be self-represented.
7I do not find these explanations persuasive. I see no reason to exercise my discretion to permit a late request for reconsideration on the basis that the applicant was self-represented and did not fully appreciate the significance of the March 15, 2012 decision until approximately six and a half months after it was rendered. On this basis alone, I would deny the applicant’s Request.
8However, I find that even if the Request had been made in a timely manner, the grounds for seeking reconsideration do not meet the Rule 26(5) criteria as set out above.
9The applicant’s central issue is that Vice-chair Liang in her March 15, 2012 decision determined that the applicant will not be able to call evidence about matters predating August 2009 at a hearing on the applicant’s allegations of reprisal. The applicant is of the view that he needs to be able to call some evidence in relation to events before August 2009 in order to establish his allegations of reprisal.
10The applicant further submits that he should be allowed to call such evidence pursuant to Vice-chair Liang’s determination in another part of her decision. In paragraph 21 of her decision Vice-chair Liang indicates that at a hearing into the applicant’s allegations of reprisal, some evidence will be required by the Tribunal to enable it to determine whether the applicant was reprised against for having filed raised human rights issues though his grievances prior to August 2009. The applicant is of the view that this determination should allow him to present evidence of matters that took place prior to August 2009 at his November 1, 2012 hearing.
11The applicant is essentially arguing that the Tribunal’s decision about what evidence he can call at a hearing on his allegations of reprisal is either wrong or inconsistent. The applicant has not provided any explanation for how this issue relates to any of the criteria for reconsideration laid out in Rule 26(5). In my view the applicant has not met the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration.
12The applicant submits that he would have presented his case differently on March 13, 2012, if he had appreciated that the Tribunal’s March 15, 2012 decision would affect what evidence he might be able to call at a hearing. However, as the Tribunal states in its Practice Direction on Reconsideration:
Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of its case.
13The request for reconsideration is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 10th day of October, 2012.
’signed by”
Eric Whist
Vice-chair