Michael Dieter v. Transcontinental Printing Inc./RBW Graphics, 2013 HRTO 125

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Michael Dieter

Applicant

-and-

Transcontinental Printing Inc./RBW Graphics

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: February 6, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 125

Indexed as: Dieter v. Transcontinental Printing Inc.

APPEARANCES

Michael Dieter, Applicant

Self-represented

Transcontinental Printing Inc./RBW Graphics, Respondent

Mark Stone, Counsel

1The applicant requests Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision of November 20, 2012, 2012 HRTO 2171, dismissing this Application.

Decision Summary

2The applicant alleged that the respondent terminated his employment because of his disability, a shoulder injury. The applicant, however, accepted a severance package from the respondent and executed a full and final release regarding his employment, which prohibited claims under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended. The Tribunal found that there was no basis for vitiating the release and that allowing the applicant to proceed with the Application would amount to an abuse of process.

Reconsideration

3The circumstances in which Reconsideration may be granted are set out in Rule 26.5:

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.

4The 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.

5The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration (the “Request”) on November 27, 2012, and relies upon Rules 26.5(d). In support of the Request, the applicant stated that his injuries are real and may be permanent and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board will not deal with his concerns. The applicant submitted a significant amount of medical information along with the Request.

6In the Request, the applicant makes no submissions that have any bearing on the requirements of Rule 26.5(d) or any of the other criteria for Reconsideration. The applicant unfortunately continues to suffer from his shoulder injury, as he presumably did when he settled with the respondent, but this is not a factor that outweighs the finality of the Tribunal’s decisions. Similarly, the fact that his claim under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act has not unfolded to his liking is no basis for the Tribunal to Reconsider the Decision dismissing his claim.

7In my view, the applicant provided no reason to conclude that compelling and extraordinary circumstances exist that would call for Reconsideration of the Decision.

8The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.