HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Pranjal S. Pathak

Applicant

-and-

Siemens Milltronics Process Instruments, Elaine Peacock, Robert Brown

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty

Date: October 9, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1921

Indexed as: Pathak v. Siemens Milltronics Process Instruments

written submissions

Pranjal S. Pathak, Applicant

Self-represented

INTRODUCTION

1Following a summary hearing, I issued a Decision dismissing this Application. I found that it had no reasonable prospect of success: see 2012 HRTO 1602 (the “Decision”).

2On September 20, 2012, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration. A respondent is not required to respond to a Request for Reconsideration unless directed to do so by the Tribunal. In the circumstances of this Request, I did not deem it necessary to seek submissions from the respondents.

ANALYSIS

3Pursuant to section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may request that it reconsider its decision. The Rules elaborate on the conditions and requirements of such a request.

Rule 26.5 states that a 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.

4Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of its case. In this regard, it is helpful to consider the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration, which states, in part:

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.

5In his Request, the applicant indicates that the Decision ought to be reconsidered because there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier, the Decision is in conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure and because other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of the Decision.

6Along with the Request, the applicant has provided detailed submissions and documents. These reiterate many of the arguments that were made or could have been made at the summary hearing.

7The applicant also refers to “new evidence”. He states that he did not have an opportunity to introduce this evidence earlier, given the nature of the summary hearing process. He writes:

Attached are new documents I have obtained (some of these I had put in a request to obtain from the respondents, some I had planned to call the individuals as witnesses. We did not have time to discuss these documents in the summary hearing. Also the summary hearing guideline did not allow the documents to be obtained or witnesses to be called).

8It is not at all apparent to me that the applicant’s “new evidence” would be determinative of the case. Much of the “new evidence” the applicant refers to are documents he created that contain a reiteration of arguments that were made or that could have been made at the summary hearing. Further, I do not accept that the “new evidence” could not have been referred to in the summary hearing. As I indicate at paragraph 6 of the Decision:

At the outset of the summary hearing, I advised the parties that I would not determine the [applicant’s Request for particulars and production of documents from the respondents], but I invited the applicant to refer in his submissions to any documents or information that he believed he could obtain from the respondents and to explain how these documents could establish that the Application has a reasonable prospect of success. The applicant did not refer to any such documents or information in his oral submissions.

9I also do not accept the applicant’s argument that he did not have time to make fulsome submissions. As the Decision explains, at paras. 7-10, the applicant had ample opportunity to make oral submissions and he filed two sets of additional written submissions with the Tribunal:

At the summary hearing, I asked that rather than focusing their submissions on the details of the many allegations, the parties address the issue of whether or not the allegations have any reasonable prospect of success. In particular, I asked that they provide submissions on whether there is a reasonable prospect of establishing a link between the applicant’s allegations and grounds under the Code.

The summary hearing went beyond the three hours allotted for the hearing. I heard lengthy oral submissions from the applicant and from respondents’ counsel. In reply, the applicant had an opportunity to make oral submissions in respect of all issues except the case law cited by the respondents. At the close of the hearing, the Tribunal suggested (and the parties agreed) that the applicant reply to the respondents’ case law by way of written submissions.

The applicant filed very extensive written submissions on May 29, 2012 and on July 24, 2012. In the submissions, he references the respondents’ case law but also reiterates many of the arguments he made at the summary hearing. [...]

The respondents object to the applicant’s written reply submissions because they go well beyond a reply to case law. In light of my conclusion that the Application has no reasonable prospect of success, it is not necessary for me to determine the respondents’ objections. Even considering the applicant’s written submissions of May 29, and July 24, 2012, I am not satisfied that the Application has a reasonable prospect of success.

10Finally, the applicant takes issue with some of the facts upon which the Decision is based. The applicant argues that my misapprehension of the following three factual elements warrants a reconsideration of the Decision.

11First, at paragraph 12 of the Decision, I state that “there was considerable discord between the applicant, his manager and many of his co-workers.” The applicant states that I erred in failing to note that none of the conflict involved individuals outside of the work group lead by the personal respondent.

12Second, the applicant states that paragraph 11(g) of the Decision does not accurately capture his allegation. Paragraph 11(g) states:

[The applicant] was unfairly criticized for intimidating one of the complainants, when he drove to her home and was in his car when she arrived after work

13In his Request for Reconsideration, the applicant states that he also alleges discrimination because he was “not informed of this incident” or provided with the details of the allegations against him regarding this incident until August 2011.

14Third, in paragraph 11(p) of the Decision, I write that the applicant complains that the personal respondent misspelt his name on two occasions. The applicant states that, in fact, the personal respondent misspelt his name on multiple occasions.

15The applicant has not identified any material error of fact in the Decision. Instead, he disagrees with my characterization of his arguments or allegations: see paragraphs 11 - 13, above. The subtleties identified by the applicant are not material to the conclusions I reached and the applicant has provided no basis to conclude that I misapprehended the nature of his arguments in any material way.

16Similarly, the fact that his name may have been misspelt on multiple (rather than two) occasions, has no bearing on my conclusion that the Application has no reasonable prospect of success.

17While the applicant’s materials cite a number of cases, he has provided no basis upon which to conclude that my Decision is in conflict with these cases. Many of the cases appear to be cited for general legal propositions. Other cases are cited in support of the applicant’s reiterated request for document disclosure. While it is apparent that the applicant disagrees with my earlier Decision, he has presented no basis to reconsider it under Rule 25.6(a), (c) or (d).

18The Request for Reconsideration is denied.