HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Jaime Castellanos
Applicant
-and-
Workplace Safety & Insurance Board, Steven Mahoney, David Marshall, Dave Whitney, Mike Curtis, Michelle Foley, Craig Pollock, and Robert Goodfellow
Respondents
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Castellanos v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Jaime Castellanos, Applicant
Self-represented
1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to services because of race, place of origin, citizenship, disability, family status, marital status and reprisal. At the hearing the applicant also clarified that he was alleging discrimination on the basis of age. The Tribunal issued a Decision on April 22, 2013, 2013 HRTO 663 (the “Decision”), dismissing the Application.
2On August 6, 2014, the applicant filed with the Tribunal a Request for reconsideration (the “Request”) of the Decision. The respondents were not directed to file a response to the applicant’s Request.
Decision
3For the reasons that follow the applicant’s Request is denied.
4The Tribunal has issued Rules governing such requests and specifically Rule 26.1 states:
Any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within (thirty) 30 days of the date of the decision.
5Reconsideration 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.
6In this case the Request for reconsideration was not filed within 30 days of the Decision, but was in fact filed over 15 months after the issuance of the Decision. The Tribunal must decide whether it is appropriate to consider the Request notwithstanding the extreme delay in filing.
7Rule 26.5.1 provides that a Request for reconsideration made more than 30 days following the Decision will not be granted unless the Tribunal determines that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay, see also: Way v. Coalition Against Psychiatric Assault, 2011 HRTO 2091.
8It is incumbent on the applicant to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing this Request. The applicant indicates that his mental and physical health have greatly deteriorated in the last two years. Though there is one medial note which indicates that the applicant is taking various medications, I find that they do not support that the applicant was incapable of filing a timely Request for reconsideration.
9Therefore, having considered the significant delay in filing the Request for reconsideration and the limited explanation provided by the applicant, I find that it is not appropriate to extend the time to file the Request.
10The Request for reconsideration is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 8th day of August, 2014.
“Signed By”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair