Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Angie Bruni
Applicant
-and-
Rod and Joe’s No Frills
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Eric Whist
Indexed as: Bruni v. Rod and Joe’s No Frills
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Angie Bruni, Applicant
Self-represented
1The applicant seeks reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, 2013 HRTO 346, dismissing her Application. The Application was dismissed on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release in relation to her employment with the respondent and to allow her Application to proceed would be an abuse of process. The Tribunal determined that the applicant was not under duress at the time she signed the release, that there was no evidence that she did not understand the nature of the release she signed or that she was coerced into signing the release.
2In her brief submissions argues that the Tribunal wrongly decided her case. She provides further information for why, in her view, she was under physical, mental and economic stress at the time she signed the release. She reiterates a claim that the respondent and her union representatives acted in concert against her interests. She maintains the respondent and her union abused and bullied her and her decision to sign the release was coerced and hence she requests that her “appeal be granted”.
3Rule 25.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure sets out the limited circumstances in which reconsideration may be granted:
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.
4It is also useful to consider the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration, which states in part:
The applicant 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.
5I have reviewed the applicant’s submissions but find that the applicant has not met the burden of establishing that any of the criteria justifying reconsideration set out in Rule 26.5 apply in her case.
6The applicant appears to be raising new facts and evidence (e.g. the full nature of the economic pressures she was under at the time she signed the release). However, in order to grant reconsideration under Rule 26.5(a), an applicant has to establish that there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that these facts could not reasonably have been obtained earlier. The applicant does not explain why this new information she wishes to rely on could not have been obtained earlier and raised at the hearing.
7The applicant has not presented arguments to suggest that this matter constitutes a matter of general or public importance so as to satisfy the second criteria for reconsideration set out in Rule 26.5(c). Nor are there any factors that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions so as to engage Rule 26.5(d).
8The Tribunal has repeatedly stated that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case. See, for example, Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34 and Winterburn v. General Motors of Canada, 2011 HRTO 1053. Once 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 very limited exceptions.
9The applicant’s Request for Reconsideration has failed to meet the criteria set out in Rule 26.5. The Request for Reconsideration is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 5^th^ day of April, 2013.
”signed by”
Eric Whist
Vice-chair