Olumuyiwa Falodun v. Andorra Building Maintenance Ltd., 2014 HRTO 1338

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Olumuyiwa Falodun Applicant

-and-

Andorra Building Maintenance Ltd. Respondent

Reconsideration Decision

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee Date: September 10, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1338 Indexed as: Falodun v. Andorra Building Maintenance Ltd.

Written Submissions

Olumuyiwa Falodun, Applicant Self-represented

Introduction

1The purpose of this Reconsideration Decision is to address the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, 2014 HRTO 322, which dismissed the Application.

Background

2On November 15, 2012, the applicant filed an Application, which alleged that the respondent had subjected him to discrimination and reprisal.

3On September 5, 2013, an in-person summary hearing took place. On March 10, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Decision, which dismissed the Application on a preliminary basis because it had no reasonable prospect of success.

4On March 13, 14, 17, and 18, and April 21, 24, and 25, 2014, the applicant filed written submissions in support of a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision.

Analysis

5Section 45.7(1) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, provides that any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may request that the Tribunal reconsider a final decision in accordance with the Tribunal rules.

6Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that 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.

7The Tribunal has also issued a Practice Direction on Reconsideration to provide guidance to the community on the nature of the reconsideration process. The Practice Direction states, in part:

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.

8In his Request for Reconsideration, the applicant indicated that the Tribunal’s Decision should be reconsidered in accordance with Rule 26.5 c). However, in his submissions in support of his Request, he did not clearly explain how his Request falls within the criteria set out in Rule 26.5 c). Instead, he repeated the same arguments that he made in advance of and at the summary hearing, and made new arguments that he could have made, but did not make, in advance of and at the summary hearing. Reconsideration is not available simply because a party disagrees with the Tribunal’s Decision, and it is not an opportunity for a party to reargue the case.

9In his April 21, 2014 submissions, the applicant also stated he has a hearing disability, and was unable to understand much of what was being said during the summary hearing. In my view, this argument is without merit because the applicant had an ample opportunity to raise this concern earlier in the process, but failed to do so.

10Specifically, the summary hearing was held in person, rather than by teleconference, because the applicant had indicated by email that he has a hearing impairment, and is particularly hard of hearing on the phone. At the outset of the summary hearing, the applicant then stated that anyone who is speaking should speak slowly and in a low tone. I then asked the applicant if he required any further accommodation, and he responded that he did not. At no point during the summary hearing did the applicant request further accommodation. Furthermore, between the date of the summary hearing and the date that the Tribunal issued its Decision, the applicant did not indicate that he was unable to understand what was being said during the summary hearing. In his first four written submissions in support of his Request for Reconsideration, he also did not indicate that he was unable to understand what was being said during the summary hearing.

Order

11The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.