HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Guillaume Kibale
Applicant
-and-
Metro Store and Jerry MacLeod
Respondents
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Kibale v. Metro Store
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Guillaume Kibale, Applicant
Self-represented
1On April 22, 2014, the Tribunal issued Decision 2014 HRTO 558 which dismissed the Application on the basis that it was not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal because it was not filed within one year of the last incident of discrimination.
2In a letter dated May 21, 2014, which was received by the Tribunal on May 26, 2014, the applicant made a Request to reconsider the Decision. The respondents have not been directed to respond to the Request to reconsider.
THE LAW
3Rule 26 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.
APPLICANT’S SUBMISSIONS
4The applicant indicates that all of the factors in Rule 26.5 exist in this matter. In support of his Request to reconsider the Application, the applicant alleges that the Decision is fraudulent or suffers from fraud and that therefore I cannot be assigned the Reconsideration request because I am not impartial.
5The applicant takes issue with the fact that I indicated at paragraph 4 of the Decision, “On April 7, 2014, the Tribunal received the applicant’s submissions”. The applicant takes the position that these were in fact received by the Tribunal on April 4, 2014 and that he has a receipt confirming that this was received by someone in Mississauga on April 4, 2014.
6The document that the Tribunal has in its file is stamped as received April 7, 2014. It may be that it took additional time for the document to be sent from Mississauga to the Tribunal’s office in downtown Toronto, especially since April 4th, 2014 was a Friday. However, nothing turns on the fact that these April submissions were received on either April 4th or April 7th. These submissions were considered by the Tribunal in determining whether to dismiss the Application for delay. The date that these submissions were received by the Tribunal is irrelevant to the ultimate dismissal of the Application for delay.
7Since the applicant has not presented any other arguments in support of his Request to reconsider I find that the applicant has not established the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26.5 that would lead to reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision. The Request is denied.
BIAS
8The legal principles related to reasonable apprehension of bias were set out by De Grandpré J. in Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy Board, 1976 CanLII 2 (SCC), [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369, at p. 394:
. . . the apprehension of bias must be a reasonable one, held by reasonable and right minded persons, applying themselves to the question and obtaining thereon the required information. In the words of the Court of Appeal, that test is “what would an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically – and having thought the matter through – conclude. Would he think that it is more likely than not that [the decision-maker], whether consciously or unconsciously, would not decide fairly.
9Based on the applicant’s submissions, there is no basis that a reasonable and informed person would conclude that I am biased in this matter. Therefore, the applicant’s allegation of bias is dismissed. (See, Landau v. Ontario (Minister of Finance), 2012 ONSC 6926.)
ORDER
10The Request to reconsider the Decision is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 15th day of July, 2014.
« Signed by »
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair