Grzywo v. Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada Inc., 2014 HRTO 1021

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Gary Grzywo Applicant

-and-

Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada Inc. Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: July 14, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1021

Indexed as: Grzywo v. Toyota Motor Manufacturing

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Gary Grzywo, Applicant

Self-represented

1In a Decision, 2014 HRTO 193 (“the Decision”), the Tribunal dismissed the Application as abandoned when the applicant failed to call in or otherwise communicate with the Tribunal that he was not able to participate in the conference call that was scheduled to commence at 9:30 a.m. on February 11, 2014.

2The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration (“the Request”) which was received by the Tribunal on March 6, 2014. In it, he marked off that there were new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not have reasonably have been obtained earlier, and other factors exist which outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions. He submitted:

My daughter is going thru a series of operations and I was not back in time from the hospital to receive the conference call. Also I have info on the July 15/1. Lateness.

3In a Case Assessment Direction dated March 24, 2014 (“the March CAD”), the Tribunal directed the applicant to file further and more detailed information about why he could not participate in the conference call; why he could not contact the Tribunal to advise that he was unable to participate in the conference call; and why his statement “Also I have info on the July 15/1. Lateness” prevented him from calling into the conference call. He was directed to provide this information by April 1, 2014.

4On Friday, April 4, 2014, at 6:15 p.m., after the Tribunal’s offices had closed, the applicant sent an email in response to the CAD, which the Tribunal received on April 7. The applicant did not indicate why he filed his submissions late. He re-sent these submissions on April 30, 2014. In those submissions, he stated that he had to take his daughter back to the hospital in the early morning for treatment, that he did not get home in time to participate in the call, and did not have the Tribunal’s contact information with him to call it and advise about this situation. As for the “July 15/1. Lateness”, the applicant provided information about that incident which appears to relate to the allegations in his initial Application.

5In another CAD dated May 21, 2014 (“the May CAD”), the Tribunal directed the applicant to file documentation from the hospital about his daughter being re-admitted to the hospital on February 11, 2014. He was also directed to provide an explanation as to why the submissions the Tribunal received on April 7, 2014 were not provided on April 1, 2014. He was directed to provide this information by May 28, 2014 to the Tribunal, copying the respondent’s counsel.

6The Tribunal has not required the respondent to file any submissions in relation to the applicant’s Request.

7The applicant has not filed the information requested in the May CAD and the time for doing so has elapsed.

Law and Analysis

8Rule 26.5 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.

9Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of its case. It 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.

10In this case, the applicant marked off Rules 26.5(a) and (d).

11The applicant has provided a partial explanation about why he was unable to call into the conference call hearing. Certainly attending to a hospitalized child or taking a child to a hospital as the reason for missing a conference call hearing could be a factor under Rule 26.5(d) upon which the Tribunal could reconsider its Decision.

12However, the Tribunal has requested some verification of this explanation, as required in its May CAD, which the applicant had not supplied nor responded to. In the absence of verification about this fact, the Tribunal is not prepared to grant the applicant’s Request based upon his written submission only. The applicant has also not addressed the reasons why his response to the March CAD was outside the time limits directed by the Tribunal. The applicant has communicated no further with the Tribunal.

13Accordingly, the applicant’s Request is denied.