Boswell v. NCR Canada, 2012 HRTO 317

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Alan Boswell

Applicant

-and-

NCR Canada, Corporate Recruiters and Nick Hames

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Ian R. Mackenzie

Date: February 14, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 317

Indexed as: Boswell v. NCR Canada

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Alan Boswell, Applicant ) Self represented

1On January 30, 2012, the Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, 2012 HRTO 219, dismissing the Application. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision.

background

2The Tribunal’s Decision found that the Application was untimely and that the applicant had not met the onus of demonstrating that the delay was incurred in good faith.

THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

3The applicant has relied on the following reasons to support his Request for Reconsideration:

a. There are new facts that could potentially be determinative of the case and could not reasonably have been obtained earlier; and

b. The decision is in conflict with established case law and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance.

4In his Request, the applicant alleges that NCR Canada lied at the summary hearing. He also provided a list of potential witnesses. He also submitted that there are no time limits and any time limit for filing his Application should be waived.

5Under section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”), the Tribunal may reconsider its decisions in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules.

6The 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). Rule 26.5 provides:

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.

7The 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.

8I find that the applicant has not met the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration.

9The naming of additional witnesses is information that was reasonably available to the applicant prior to the summary hearing. The Application was dismissed on the basis of timeliness and additional witnesses do not affect the analysis in the Decision.

10The applicant has submitted that any time limits should be waived. This is a submission that he could have made at the summary hearing. A reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case. The applicant has also not provided any reasons why waiving the time limit set out in the Code should be waived, in the circumstances of his Application. The Decision is not in conflict with established jurisprudence.

11I find that the applicant has not demonstrated that the reconsideration request involves a matter of general or public importance or that other factors outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

12The Request for Reconsideration is denied.