Rong v. Gold Line Telemanagement Inc., 2014 HRTO 109

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Gang Rong

Applicant

-and-

Gold Line Telemanagement Inc.

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: January 24, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 109

Indexed as: Rong v. Gold Line Telemanagement Inc.

APPEARANCES

Gang Rong, Applicant

Self-represented

1The applicant seeks reconsideration of the Decision, 2013 HRTO 1975, dismissing his Application.

2For the reasons set out below, I find that the applicant has not established the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (“Rules”) that would cause me to reconsider my Decision.

The Decision being challenged

3In the Decision, I found that the applicant failed to establish that the respondent had discriminated against or harassed him because of his race. As I noted in my Decision, to establish discrimination, it is not sufficient to show that the applicant is of a different racial/ethnic origin than his supervisor and co-workers. It is also not sufficient to show that his work performance was criticized or that he was not granted salary increases. There must be something more that is sufficient to connect or link the applicant’s race to this conduct. For the reasons set out in my Decision, I found the applicant had failed to advance sufficient evidence to support an inference that his race was a factor in the respondent’s actions toward him.

Applicable Principles

4In Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34, the Tribunal stated that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case. Once the Tribunal has made a decision in a case, parties are entitled to treat the matter as closed, subject to limited exceptions.

5The circumstances in which a Request for Reconsideration may be granted are set out in Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules:

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.

THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

6In his Request for Reconsideration, the applicant repeats many of the same arguments he made in the hearing. He also takes issues with the fact that I did not refer to certain portions of witness testimony in my Decision. As the courts have noted, a tribunal does not have to refer to every piece of evidence or set out every finding or conclusion, no matter how subordinate, in the process of arriving at its decision. See, for example, Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board), 2011 SCC 62 at para. 16 and Clifford v. Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System, 2009 ONCA 670 at para. 29. In the Decision, I referred to the testimony I considered relevant. In coming to my Decision, I weighed all of the evidence presented in the case. Having done so, I found that the applicant had not made out his burden of establishing discrimination on a balance of probabilities.

7The applicant also takes issue with the treatment of the “source code repository” evidence in the Decision. He claims that it was unfair to permit the respondent to provide an extensive presentation of slides relating to the data from the source code repository. He also appears to claim that it was inconsistent for the Tribunal to devote 10 paragraphs to the issue only to find that the source code repository evidence had little relevance to the issues in the case.

8These factors are not factors that would lead to the reconsideration of my Decision. It was the applicant who placed emphasis on the source code repository issue. It was due to the applicant’s strong emphasis on the issue that the respondent was required to make extensive responding submissions and the Tribunal devoted a section of its Decision to address the applicant’s concerns on the issue.

9Finally, the applicant appears to claim that Mr. Modir, his former supervisor, lied under oath when he testified that the “Percentage of Authorship” charts produced by the respondent were prepared using an algorithm in the applicable computer program. The applicant claims to have done some online searches on the program in question. He claims that he has found no reference to the algorithm referred to in Mr. Modir’s testimony. None of this information is a basis for reconsidering my Decision. The main reason for this is that, although I admitted the charts, in the end, I found that the charts were of little relevance to the issues before me in the case.

Analysis

10I deny the Request for Reconsideration because the applicant has failed to establish the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26.5 that might lead to reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision.