Charles Arnott v. Vari-Form Corporation and Sun Capital Partners Inc., 2012 HRTO 745

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Charles Arnott

Applicant

-and-

Vari-Form Corporation and Sun Capital Partners Inc.

Respondents

reconsideration decision

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: April 13, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 745

Indexed as: Arnott v. Vari-Form Corporation

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Charles Arnott, Applicant ) Self-represented

1The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration (the “Request”) on April 4, 2012, which requested reconsideration of my Decision, 2012 HRTO 446 issued March 1, 2012, that dismissed his Application.

2Under section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (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. Rule 26.5 provides:

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.

3It is also useful 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.

Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of its case.

4It is my view that the applicants’ Request does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 26.5. The applicant did not present any new facts, evidence or case law but simply calls into question the honesty and integrity of the respondents’ witnesses and asserts that I was “illogical, irrational and in error to fulfilling the mandate of the HRTO”. It is clear that the applicant disagrees with the Tribunal’s decision. However, reconsideration is not available simply because a party disagrees with the Tribunal’s decision, and it is not an opportunity for a party to reargue the case.

5Rule 26.1 imposes a general 30- day time limit on requests for reconsideration. The applicant has provided no reasons for making his Request more than 30 days after the date of the Tribunal’s decision. However, given my conclusion that there is no basis for a reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision, it is not necessary to address the issue of timeliness.

6The Request is dismissed.