HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Mitsubishi Thompson
Applicant
-and-
Gemma Communications LP
Respondent
Reconsideration Decision
Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume
Indexed as: Thompson v. Gemma Communications LP
1The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, 2011 HRTO 2301, pursuant to section 45.7 of the Ontario Human Rights Code R.S.O., c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2Section 45.7 of the Code provides the Tribunal with explicit authority to reconsider its decisions:
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.
3Further to its power to make rules, the Tribunal has issued rules governing Requests for Reconsideration, as well as a Practice Direction to provide guidance to the community on the Tribunal’s exercise of its reconsideration powers.
4Rule 26 reads, in part, as follows:
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.
5The 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.
6In Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34, the Tribunal confirmed that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case. Once the parties to an application 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.
7The Application was dismissed by way of a Summary Hearing process during which the applicant was required to demonstrate why the application should not be dismissed on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success.
8The basis for the Request is that the applicant disagrees with the correctness of the Tribunal’s Decision. The applicant raises his original allegations that he was wrongfully dismissed, that his doctor’s note was refused, that he was asked to go home and told he would be contacted by his employer and then was never contacted.
9All of these issues were considered as part of the original Decision. None of the factors in Rule 26 are engaged by the Request for Reconsideration. The applicant has provided no basis on which I might exercise my discretion to overturn my original decision in this matter. Accordingly the Request for Reconsideration is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 23rd day of March, 2012.
”Signed by”______________
Leslie Reaume
Vice-chair