Thomas Hulbert v. Cott Beverages, 2014 HRTO 1437

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Thomas Hulbert

Applicant

-and-

Cott Beverages

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: September 29, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1437

Indexed as: Hulbert v. Cott Beverages

SUBMISSIONS

Thoman Hubert, Applicant

Self-represented

1The applicant seeks reconsideration of the Decision, 2014 HRTO 1167, 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 Application was untimely as it was filed over five years after the last alleged incident of discrimination set out in the Application. I also held that, even if I were to accept the applicant’s reasons for the delay in filing his Application, his Application had no reasonable of success under the Code. In his Application, the applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against him because of record of offences and association with a person identified by a ground protected under the Code. I dismissed these claims as having no reasonable prospect of success for the reasons given at paras. 15-17 of the Decision.

Applicable Principles relating to reconsideration

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 states that the Tribunal should reconsider its decision that the Application was untimely. The applicant notes that he filed his Application within one year of his date of termination. He argues that the reasons the respondent gave for his termination extend way beyond the 12 month time frame that the company may use to dismiss employees under the collective agreement. He goes on to say that, under the collective agreement, prior discipline should not be relied upon by the respondent after 12 months. In his Request for Reconsideration he states that the respondent gave him the run around and relied on minor issues from 2004 and 2005 to terminate him. He states that this his termination has had a serious effect on his mental health.

ANALYSIS

7As noted in the Decision, the Tribunal does not have the power to address allegations of unfairness that are unrelated to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990 c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). The Tribunal also does not have the power to address violations of a collective agreement that is in place between the parties. The issue in this case is a labour relations issue, not a human rights issue. The applicant’s allegations are allegations that the respondent violated the collective agreement. The Tribunal does not have the power over this type of claim. It only has the power to address discrimination under the Code.

8I understand that the applicant believes that the respondent did not have good reasons for his termination and that he believes that his termination may have been linked to the incident in 2007. However, this in itself, does not bring his Application within this Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Absent some information that has a reasonable prospect of establishing a link to a ground protected under the Code, the Application has no reasonable prospect of success under the Code.

ORDER

9I deny the Request for Reconsideration for the reasons set out above.