Toth v. Express Personnel, 2013 HRTO 861

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

William Toth Applicant

-and-

Express Personnel Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: May 17, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 861

Indexed as: Toth v. Express Personnel

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

William Toth, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1On March 11, 2013, the Tribunal issued its Decision, 2013 HRTO 417, dismissing the Application on the basis that the applicant was deemed to have abandoned his Application. The basis for that Decision was that the applicant failed to respond to the Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) asking him for submissions on the apparent delay in filing his Application.

THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

2The applicant submitted a Request for Reconsideration on the basis that the Decision of the Tribunal “is in conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance.

DECISION

3Under section 45.7 of the Code, 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.

4The Tribunal has issued Rules of Procedure, which govern such requests, as well as a Practice Direction to provide guidance to the community on the Tribunal’s exercise of its reconsideration powers (Practice Direction on Reconsideration, January 2008 amended June 2008). Rule 26 states in part:

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.

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.

Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of its case.

6As is evident from the above, reconsideration is a discretionary remedy. That is, while the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to reopen and reconsider its own decisions, it is not obliged to do so.

7The applicant filed his Application on December 4, 2012, concerning the termination of his employment, which appeared to have taken place on September 27, 2011. On January 15, 2013, the Tribunal issued the NOID on the basis of delay. The applicant was specifically advised in that NOID that he must file written submissions concerning the issue raised in the NOID by February 14, 2013. He was also advised that failure to file submissions within the specified time could be considered abandonment by the Tribunal and the Application could be dismissed on that basis. The applicant did not file submissions in response to the NOID and on March 11, 2013, the Tribunal dismissed his Application as abandoned.

8In his Request for Reconsideration, the applicant does not provide any reason for his failure to respond to the NOID in a timely fashion (or at all), nor does he provide any explanation for the apparent delay in filing his Application. Instead, the applicant addresses the alleged conduct of the respondent and supplements the allegations of discrimination.

9The applicant has failed to address any of the factors set out in Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. I see no basis for exercising my discretion to reconsider my earlier Decision.

order

10The Request for Reconsideration is, accordingly, dismissed.