Mills v. Historia Specialized Care Inc., 2014 HRTO 1020

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

William Mills

Applicant

-and-

Historia Specialized Care Inc.; Immortalizing Marketing & Promotions Inc; Nalini Singh-Boutilier and Lorida Galante

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: July 16, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1020

Indexed as: Mills v. Historia Specialized Care Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

William Mills, Applicant ) Self represented,

1On May 28, 2014 the Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application 2014 HRTO 763, dismissing the Application. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision.

background

2The Tribunal’s Decision found that the Application should be dismissed because it was largely out of time and otherwise had no reasonable prospect of success.

3On May 29, 2014 the applicant wrote to the Tribunal asking that the Tribunal reconsider its Decision. The applicant was directed to file a Form 20 Request for Reconsideration but failed to do so. Notwithstanding the applicant’s failure to comply with this direction the Tribunal has chosen to process the reconsideration request. The respondent was not required to respond to the applicant’s letter of May 29, 2014.

DECISION

4Under 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.

5The Tribunal has issued Rules governing 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). Most relevant to this Decision is Rule 26 which 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.

6The 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.

7As 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. It may decide when reconsideration is advisable, both through the promulgation of rules setting out conditions for the exercise of its discretion, and through the application of its discretion on a case-by-case basis.

8I find that the applicant has not met the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration.

9The applicant’s request addresses none of the factors identified in the Tribunal’s Rules but essentially repeats arguments made orally before the Tribunal and refers to events during his employment relationship with the respondents that were found to be untimely because they were unconnected to the behaviour complained of which occurred long after the employment relationship ended. A request for reconsideration is not an opportunity to restate or re-argue a position already advanced and considered.

10It is important to note that the issues raised in this Request were the subject of submissions before the Tribunal, and dealt with in its Decision. In Sigrist and Carson , above, the Tribunal stated that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case. Once the parties have had the opportunity to present their 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 additional argument on issues already fully canvassed before the Tribunal.

11The applicant suggests that the respondents have hijacked the issues by involving the Tribunal in criminal allegations and that the fact that the Tribunal has become involved in these criminal allegations influenced the Decision. It is not at all clear what the applicant is referring to. In any event there is no basis to conclude that the result in the Decision was influenced by the fact that there may have been criminal proceedings related in some way to the issues arising in the Application.

12In short, I find that the applicant has not established the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26 that could result in the reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision. The Request is denied.