HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
John Walsh
Applicant
-and-
Maintenance & Construction Skilled Trades Council and Toronto District School Board
Respondents
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty
Indexed as: Walsh v. Maintenance & Construction Skilled Trades Council
Written Submissions
John Walsh, Applicant ) Self-Represented
[1] The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), in which he alleges discrimination in employment and membership in a vocational association on the basis of disability. He also alleges reprisal or threat of reprisal.
[2] In essence, the applicant alleges workplace harassment and bullying. He is dissatisfied with the respondents’ reaction to his complaints of workplace harassment and states that this constitutes discrimination. Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the Application, finding that it had no reasonable prospect of success: 2011 HRTO 2243.
[3] On January 12, 2012, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration, (“Request”) and submissions in support of the Request. 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, the Tribunal did not deem it necessary to seek submissions from the respondents.
[4] For the reasons that follow, the Request is dismissed. The applicant has presented no basis to reconsider the Tribunal’s Decision.
ANALYSIS
5Pursuant to section 45.7 of 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. Pursuant to Rule 26.5, 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.
6Reconsideration 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.
7In his Request, the applicant indicates that the Decision ought to be reconsidered because it is in conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure and because there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier.
[5] In the submissions filed in support of the Request, the applicant has reiterated many of the arguments he made at the summary hearing or in his Application. These have been addressed in the Decision. The applicant does not cite any caselaw or explain why he feels the Decision is in conflict with any established law or Tribunal procedure.
[6] While it is apparent that the applicant disagrees with the Decision, he has presented no basis to reconsider it. The Request is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 15th day of February, 2012.
“Signed by”
Michelle Flaherty
Vice-chair