HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Delmonte Amendola
Applicant
-and-
Marriott Hotels of Canada Ltd.
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Brian Cook
Indexed as: Amendola v. Marriott Hotels of Canada Ltd.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Delmonte Amendola, Applicant
Self-represented
1On December 6, 2012 the Tribunal issued Decision 2012 HRTO 2292 (“the Decision”), dismissing the Application because the applicant had signed a Release releasing the respondent from legal liability under the Human Rights Code in regard to the applicant’s employment with the respondent. The Application alleged an infringement of the applicant’s rights under the Code in regard to the applicant’s employment with the respondent. The Tribunal found that the Release that the applicant signed meant that he could not bring the Application against the respondent and it was dismissed on that basis.
2In the Request for Reconsideration, the applicant restates his allegations about poor treatment during his employment with the respondent and asks that the Decision be reconsidered.
DECISION
3Section 45.7 of the Code gives the Tribunal the authority to reconsider a decision in accordance with the 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.
4The Tribunal has issued Rules governing requests to reconsider. Rule 26 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states:
26.1 Any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within (thirty) 30 days of the date of the decision
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.
5The Request for Reconsideration does not indicate that any of these factors exist in this case. It does not refer to any new facts or evidence. There is no dispute that the applicant received notice of the Tribunal hearing and he participated in the hearing. There is no suggestion that the Decision conflicts with the approach the Tribunal has taken in similar cases. No other factors are identified that provide a basis to reconsider the Decision.
6Although it is clear that the applicant would like to be able to proceed with the Application, this is really just a restatement of the position that was already heard and decided in the Decision. This is not a basis that would allow the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision.
DECISION
7The Request for Reconsideration is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 11th day of February, 2013.
“signed by”
Brian Cook
Vice-chair