HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Jeffrey McLennon
Applicant
-and-
York University
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: McLennon v. York University
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Jeffery McLennon, Applicant
Desmond McLennon, Representative
1On May 1, 2013, the Tribunal issued its Decision 2013 HRTO 721, (the “Final Decision”) dismissing the Application.
2On May 14, 2013, the applicant filed with the Tribunal a Request for Reconsideration. The Tribunal did not direct the respondent to file any submissions with respect to this Request however the respondent wrote a letter to the Tribunal on May 21, 2013 which states that there is no basis to reconsider the Final Decision.
THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
3The Request for Reconsideration filed by the applicant indicates that the Final Decision was late, is in conflict with established case law and involves a matter of general or public importance and that other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of the Final Decision.
4The applicant also states in the written submissions, amongst other things, that the Final Decision reflects my bias against the applicant, that I am incompetent, and that the Final Decision “reflects an unexplained hostility against the applicant by the adjudicator and her co conspirers”.
Bias
5On January 16, 2012, I issued Interim Decision 2012 HRTO 102, in which I refused to recuse myself on the basis of bias. At the first day of hearing, the applicant’s representative stated that he did not have any concerns with me hearing the matter.
6The legal principles related to reasonable apprehension of bias were set out by De Grandpré J. in Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy Board, 1976 CanLII 2 (SCC), [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369, at p. 394:
. . . the apprehension of bias must be a reasonable one, held by reasonable and right minded persons, applying themselves to the question and obtaining thereon the required information. In the words of the Court of Appeal, that test is “what would an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically – and having thought the matter through – conclude. Would he think that it is more likely than not that [the decision-maker], whether consciously or unconsciously, would not decide fairly.
7The applicant provides no details or particulars to support his allegation of bias. In these circumstances, the mere fact that I dismissed the Application does not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.
Reconsideration
8Under section 45.7 of the Code, the Tribunal may, at the request of a party or on its own initiative, reconsider its decisions in accordance with Tribunal’s Rules.
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.
9The Tribunal has issued Rules outlining how the Tribunal will exercise its discretion in deciding such requests and Rule 26 states:
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.
10As is evident from the above, reconsideration is a discretionary remedy. That is, while the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to reopen and reconsider its own decisions, it is not obliged to do so. It may decide when reconsideration is advisable, both through the promulgation of rules setting out conditions for the exercise of its discretion, and through the application of its discretion on a case-by-case basis.
11I find that the applicant has not met the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration. Though I understand that the applicant is dissatisfied with the Final Decision he has provided no basis or any support for his assertion that the Final Decision should be reconsidered.
ORDER
12The Request for Reconsideration is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 14^th^ day of August, 2013.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair