HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Edmund Rock
Applicant
-and-
Toronto Community Housing Corporation
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Paul Aterman Date: March 25, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 494 Indexed as: Rock v. Toronto Community Housing
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Edmund Rock, Applicant
Self-represented
Introduction
1The applicant has filed a Request for Reconsideration in relation to the Tribunal’s Decision, 2013 HRTO 78, dated January 15, 2013.
2The applicant had brought an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability. The Application had been deferred because of a pending grievance proceeding. The grievance proceeding resulted in an arbitration award that upheld the respondent’s termination of the applicant’s employment.
3The Application was then re-activated, but after a preliminary hearing on section 45.1 of the Code I dismissed the Application because the arbitration award had appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application.
submission
4The applicant is making this Request because he believes that the decision dismissing his Application is in conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure and maintains that the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance. He also maintains that other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.
5The applicant argues that his submissions at the hearing were misunderstood. He reiterates the arguments that he made at the hearing. Specifically, he maintains that it was wrong to find that the arbitrator’s award appropriately dealt with the subject matter of the Application because the award does not address the respondent’s duty to accommodate a disability. He argues that for this reason the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Figliola, 2011 SCC 52, and the Tribunal cases that flow from it, such as Paterno v. Salvation Army, 2011 HRTO 2298, do not apply to the facts of his case.
6He also argues that the Decision misapprehends his position because the following argument was wrongly attributed to him in the Tribunal’s reasons at paragraph 8:
The applicant argues that he and the union (which was following his wishes) did not pursue the Code issues and restricted their arguments at the arbitration to the submission there was no cause of discipline and discharge.
analysis and decision
7Section 45.7 of the Code provides the Tribunal with authority to reconsider its decisions. Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provides 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;
(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;
(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.
8The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration states the following:
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.
9The applicant has not established the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26 that would lead to reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision. In this Request the applicant is repeating arguments he made orally before the Tribunal. The Request again asserts that the arbitrator wrongly focused on the applicant’s conduct when she should have focused on the respondent’s conduct and, in particular, on the respondent’s alleged failure to accommodate the applicant’s disability. The fact that the arbitration award explicitly addressed the issue of discrimination is set out in the Tribunal’s reasons.
10A request for reconsideration is not an opportunity to restate or re-argue a position already advanced and considered. In this regard, the applicant is not making any arguments about the law that he had not already made at the hearing.
11The excerpted passage from paragraph 8 of the Decision that the applicant argues was wrongly attributed to him is in fact part of a quote from paragraph 28 of the Tribunal’s decision in Paterno which was cited in the Decision. Accordingly, this is not an argument attributed to him. In any event, as is noted above, the arbitration award addressed the question of discrimination.
12The applicant has not shown how the Decision conflicts with established case law or Tribunal procedure and that there is a matter of general or public importance raised by this case. The applicant has not pointed to other factors that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.
13Accordingly, the Request for Reconsideration is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 25^th^ day of March, 2013.
“Signed by”
__________________________________
Paul Aterman
Vice-chair