Meredith v. MGC Limited Partnership, 2013 HRTO 532

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Harold Meredith

Applicant

-and-

MGC Limited Partnership o/a Magna Golf Club

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: March 28, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 532

Indexed as: Meredith v. MGC Limited Partnership

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Harold Meredith, Applicant

Self-represented

INTRODUCTION

1On August 8, 2012, the Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, 2012 HRTO 1540 (“the Decision”), dismissing the Application.

2On August 22, 2012, the applicant filed a Request to Reconsider (“the Request”). Due to an administrative error, the applicant’s Request was not processed until the applicant contacted the Tribunal to inquire about the status of the Request. The Tribunal regrets this error.

BACKGROUND

3The Decision found that the respondent did not discriminate against the applicant on the basis of age. The applicant alleged that he was not given a job following a job interview on August 12, 2011. After the interview, conducted by Dave Paterson, the respondent’s Assistant Superintendent, the applicant understood that Mr. Paterson would call him no later than August 14.

4As noted at paragraph 8 of the Decision:

The applicant and Mr. Paterson agree that at the end of the interview Mr. Paterson told the applicant that he would be in touch with him “on Friday or Saturday.” As noted, the interview took place on Friday, August 12. The applicant is firmly of the view that Mr. Paterson said that he would be call the applicant later that day (Friday August 12) or the following day (Saturday August 13). Mr. Paterson testified that he meant that he would contact the applicant by Friday, August 19 or Saturday, August 20.

5For the reasons set out in the Decision, I concluded that while the applicant honestly believes that Mr. Paterson told him he would get back to the applicant by August 12 or 13, this was not what Mr. Paterson meant and that instead Mr. Paterson’s intention was to get back to the applicant by the following weekend. I further concluded that even if the applicant was correct on this point, the failure to call the applicant would not establish discrimination on the basis of age.

6The Request focuses on the applicant’s unshaken belief that Mr. Paterson said that he would get back to the applicant no later than August 12 or 13, 2011 and his arguments about why he believes Mr. Paterson’s testimony was not credible.

DECISION

7Under section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, the Tribunal may, at the request of a party or on its own initiative, reconsider its decisions in accordance with 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.

8Rule 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.

9The applicant’s Request does not establish the existence of any of these factors.

10The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration reads 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 or an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of its case.

11The issues raised in this Request were the subject of submissions before the Tribunal, and dealt with in its Decision. As noted in the Practice Direction, reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case. Once the parties 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. I find that the submissions in this Request amount to re-argument of issues already made at the hearing and addressed in the Decision.

12The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.