Oremade v. Commissionaires Ottawa, 2013 HRTO 400

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Solomon Oremade Applicant

-and-

Commissionaires Ottawa Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Ian R. Mackenzie Date: March 8, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 400 Indexed as: Oremade v. Commissionaires Ottawa

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Solomon Oremade, Applicant ) Self-represented )

1On February 1, 2013, the Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, 2013 HRTO 181, dismissing the Application. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision in accordance with section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”).

background

2The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of race and colour. The Tribunal’s Decision found that the applicant had not established discrimination under the Code.

THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

3The applicant has relied on the following reasons to support his Request for Reconsideration:

a. The decision is in conflict with established case law and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance; and

b. Other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

DECISION

4Under section 45.7 of the Code, the Tribunal may reconsider its decisions in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules. The Tribunal has issued Rules governing such requests as well as a Practice Direction to provide guidance to applicants and respondents on the Tribunal’s exercise of its reconsideration powers (Practice Direction on Reconsideration, January 2008, amended June 2008 and March 2010). Rule 26.5 provides:

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 Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration contains 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.

6I find that the applicant has not met the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying granting a reconsideration.

7The applicant states in his Request that the hearing was not recorded. This is not a basis for reconsideration to be granted. As stated in the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Recording Hearings the Tribunal does not normally record its proceedings.

8The applicant identifies areas where the facts set out in the Decision were inaccurate, however, for the reasons that follow I am not satisfied that these facts are determinative of the case:

a. In the Decision, I stated that the applicant’s employment was terminated after the filing of his Application. The applicant states that the termination of employment happened before the filing of the Application. In light of the fact that the applicant’s termination of employment was not the subject of the hearing, this misstatement is not material; and

b. In the Decision, I stated that the applicant’s supervisor gave him the middle finger. The applicant stated that his supervisor gave all of the employees at the loading dock the middle finger. In my view, this is not a significant difference and has no material impact on the findings in the Decision.

9In support of his Request, the applicant essentially repeats arguments made orally before the Tribunal. A request for reconsideration is not an opportunity to restate or re-argue a position already advanced and considered.

10The applicant refers to a possible witness who could confirm that the investigation of the harassment complaint against him was fraudulent. This was a witness who could have been called at the hearing and was not.

11The applicant states that the witnesses for the respondent were lying under oath. The applicant has not provided information that was not available at the time of the hearing to support his allegation.

12The applicant disagrees with the conclusions reached in the Decision. Disagreeing with the conclusions of a decision is not sufficient to justify a reconsideration of a decision.

13The applicant made no submissions on how the Decision was in conflict with established jurisprudence. I am not convinced that any findings made in the Decision are in conflict with established jurisprudence.

14The applicant raised both in this Request and at the hearing the fact of a settlement offer made by the respondent. At the hearing I told the applicant that settlement offers were privileged and inadmissible in a hearing on the merits of an Application. I see no basis to reconsider that ruling.

15I find that the applicant has not demonstrated that the reconsideration request involves a matter of general or public importance or that other factors outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

16The Request for Reconsideration is denied.