Tulloch v. Superior Facility Services (1084408), 2013 HRTO 759

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Steven Tulloch

Applicant

-and-

Superior Facility Services (1084408), Tim Hesch, Sharon Yeo and Lauren Fagan

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume

Date: May 7, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 759

Indexed as: Tulloch v. Superior Facility Services (1084408)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Steven Tulloch, Applicant

Cecil Norman, Representative

1The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, 2012 HRTO 2031, pursuant to section 45.7 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O., 1990 c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application was dismissed at the conclusion of a Summary Hearing for no reasonable prospect of success.

2Section 45.7 of the Code provides the Tribunal with authority and discretion to reconsider its decisions:

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.

3The Tribunal has issued rules governing Requests for Reconsideration, as well as a Practice Direction to provide guidance to the community on the Tribunal’s exercise of its reconsideration powers.

4Rule 26.5 states 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; 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 and orders.

5The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration begins with 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.

6Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of its case. In Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34, the Tribunal confirmed that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case. 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 limited exceptions.

7This Application was dismissed following oral submissions. The applicant was required to demonstrate that the respondent’s treatment was based in part, on the prohibited grounds alleged in the Application.

8The Request for Reconsideration cites Rule 26.5 (c) and (d).

9In the narrative of the Request the applicant makes it clear that he disagrees with the original decision to dismiss this Application without a full hearing and without the parties first having an opportunity to resolve this matter through mediation. The arguments and allegations contained in the Request were argued before me during the Summary Hearing. I understand the applicant’s submissions and the cases he cites which establish that racism often manifests in a subtle manner, however, that issue was carefully considered before the Decision was made to dismiss the Application. Therefore there is no basis upon which I can exercise my discretion to reconsider the original decision.

10Accordingly, the Request for Reconsideration is therefore denied.