Coelho v. Hydro One Brampton Networks Inc., 2013 HRTO 1738

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Teresa Coelho

Applicant

-and-

Hydro One Brampton Networks Inc.

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: October 15, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1738

Indexed as: Coelho v. Hydro One Brampton Networks Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Teresa Coelho, Applicant ) Self-represented

INTRODUCTION

1The purpose of this Reconsideration Decision is to address the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, 2013 HRTO 1204, which dismissed the Application.

BACKGROUND

2On March 9, 2011, the applicant filed her first Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), with the Tribunal, which alleged that the respondent discriminated against her because of her disability with respect to employment.

3On February 27, 2012, the applicant, the respondent and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 636 (the “Union”) attended a mediation at the Tribunal, and executed Minutes of Settlement in which they agreed that there was a full and final resolution of the Application. The Tribunal then disposed of the Application and closed the file.

4On May 17, 2012, filed a second Application under s. 34 of the Code with the Tribunal, which alleged that the respondent discriminated against her because of her disability and subjected her to reprisals with respect to employment.

5On July 10, 2013, the Tribunal issued a Decision, which dismissed the second Application because it was an abuse of process. The Tribunal found that the Application was an attempt to re-litigate the settlement of Code-related employment issues between the applicant, the respondent and the Union, and was therefore an abuse of process.

6On August 10, 2013, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision.

ANALYSIS

7Section 45.7(1) of the Code provides that any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may request that the Tribunal reconsider a final decision in accordance with the Tribunal rules.

8Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules states that 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.

9The Tribunal has also issued a Practice Direction on Reconsideration to provide guidance to the community on the nature of the reconsideration process. The Practice Direction 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.

10In her Request for Reconsideration, the applicant indicated that the Tribunal’s Decision should be reconsidered in accordance with Rule 26.5 a), c) and d). In my view, the Request should be denied for the following reasons.

11With respect to Rule 26.5 a), the applicant raised new facts, but did not explain how they could not reasonably have been obtained earlier. With respect to Rule 26.5 c), she cited and quoted jurisprudence, and stated that the issues in her Application are of public importance because they have a direct impact on employees with disabilities and unionized employees, and employees will be discouraged from coming forward and asserting their rights under the Code, but she did not cogently explain how the Tribunal’s Decision is in conflict with established jurisprudence. With respect to Rule 26.5 d), she did not explain what other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

12Much of the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration involves repeating the same arguments that she made before and at the hearing, and raising new arguments that she could have made at the hearing. 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.

ORDER

13The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.