HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
John Bethune
Applicant
-and-
K.A.S. Personnel Services Inc.
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta
Indexed as: Bethune v. K.A.S. Personnel Services Inc.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
John Bethune, Applicant
Self-represented
Introduction
1On October 16, 2013, the applicant filed Request for Reconsideration (Form 20), pursuant to section 45.7 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) seeking reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, dated October 7, 2013 (see 2013 HRTO 1681).
2The Tribunal’s decision, dated October 7, 2013, dismissed the Application filed by the applicant on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect that the Application would succeed.
3Specifically, the Tribunal held that while the comments he alleges were made by a co-worker were clearly unwelcome and upsetting to him and those comments may have been related to a disabling condition, the applicant did not allege that he informed the respondent employer about the conduct.
4In fact, he clearly stated in his Application and supporting documents that he did not tell anyone in a position of authority. Specifically, he said he avoided speaking to the respondent employer and his union steward because he wanted to leave the workplace.
5By his own account, when the employer and the applicant’s union steward tried to meet with them, he told them he was quitting his job and left the premises without telling them about the conduct that he subsequently alleged amounted to a violation of the Code and without giving them an opportunity to look into the allegation and take appropriate corrective action.
6Section 45.7 of the Code provides the Tribunal with authority and discretion 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.
7The 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.
8Rule 26.5 states that 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.
9The 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.
10The applicant has sought reconsideration on the basis of the grounds outlined in Rule 26(5)(a).
11It is apparent that the applicant disagrees with the outcome of this Application. Despite not being invited to do so, he has sent in additional medical condition documentation confirming the existence of a medical condition. I assume that these are the “new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier”.
12I note that the Tribunal’s original decision did not turn on whether the applicant had a medical condition that amounted to a disability or whether the alleged comments made by a co-worker were unwelcome. In fact, the Tribunal’s decision assumed without finding that the applicant did have a disability within the meaning of the Code and that the comments were unwelcome. As such, neither his submissions nor the additional documents advance his argument for reconsideration.
13Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of its case. In 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.
14Once 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.
15I find that none of the factors in Rule 26.5 are engaged by the Request for Reconsideration. There is no basis on which I might exercise my discretion to overturn my original decision in this matter.
16Accordingly the Request for Reconsideration is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 18^th^ day of November, 2013.
”Signed by”____________________
Jay Sengupta
Vice-chair```