Robin Qu v. The Corporation of the City of Mississauga, Dan Ferguson, Louise Ann Riddell and Sharon Willcock, 2014 HRTO 1461

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Robin Qu

Applicant

-and-

The Corporation of the City of Mississauga, Dan Ferguson, Louise Ann Riddell and Sharon Willcock

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman
Date: October 1, 2014
Citation: 2014 HRTO 1461
Indexed as: Qu v. Mississauga (City)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Robin Qu, Applicant
Self-represented

background

1This Decision explains why the Tribunal will not reconsider its Decision in 2014 HRTO 1152 of July 31, 2014. That Decision dismissed the applicant’s Application on the ground that it was barred because he had earlier signed a full and final release of the respondents from any future liability in proceedings alleging a violation of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The applicant worked for the corporate respondent as a health and safety specialist. He was terminated from his employment in February of 2013.

3The termination of the applicant’s employment was arrived at on terms that included a severance package and a full and final release by the applicant. The release included language that precluded him from bringing an application to the Tribunal in relation to the issues that gave rise to the termination of his employment.

4In the Decision I determined that, contrary to the applicant’s argument, there was no basis to conclude that the release should be set aside because it had been entered into by him under duress. Specifically, I determined that the evidence did not support a conclusion that the emotional and psychological pressures on him at the time he signed the release were so great as to amount to a coercion of his will. I also determined that he had not shown that he was denied an opportunity to obtain legal advice before signing.

5The applicant requests a reconsideration of the Decision. He maintains that:

• He has new evidence that could be determinative of the case and could not reasonably have been obtained earlier;
• The decision is in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance; and
• Other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

6Section 45.7 of the Code provides the Tribunal with authority to reconsider its decisions. Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provides that 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;

(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;

(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 and orders.

7The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration states the following:

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 or an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of its case.

New evidence

8The new evidence which the applicant relies on is an email dated February 5, 2013 from the Commissioner of Corporate Services of the corporate respondent to a racialised employee of the corporate respondent. The applicant investigated an alleged threatening action by this employee and found that the employee’s actions and statements posed no risk to anyone’s safety. It was his handling of this investigation that the applicant claims led to his termination.

9According to the applicant the email proves that the employee was contesting the discipline imposed on him by the corporate respondent. The applicant maintains that the corporate respondent misled him about this fact, and that this is evidence that the corporate respondent’s decision to terminate the applicant’s employment was a reprisal because the applicant refused to infringe the human rights of the employee whose conduct he had investigated.

10This email was available to the applicant before the hearing which led to his Application being dismissed. He has not explained why he did not produce this document earlier. As such it is not new evidence within the meaning of the criteria for reconsideration set out above. Moreover, it is not evidence that could potentially be determinative of the issue which led to the dismissal of his Application. The issue for determination was whether he signed the release under duress. The email is not evidence which speaks to that issue and would have made no difference to the outcome had he produced it at the hearing. For these reasons I conclude that the email does not provide a basis upon which to reconsider the Decision.

conflict with established jurisprudence

11This criterion for reconsideration requires that there both be a conflict with established Tribunal jurisprudence or procedure and that the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance.

12In his submissions the applicant does not identify any conflict with the Tribunal’s caselaw or established procedure. Rather, his submissions assert that at various points in the Decision I misinterpreted or misunderstood key facts and came to conclusions that were wrong. I understand that the applicant does not agree with the Decision, but the purpose of the reconsideration process is not for parties to reargue their case, which is what the applicant is doing.

13As to the issue of the proposed reconsideration involving a matter of general importance, the applicant argues that if his Application is not reopened then every Ontarian will be afraid to try to enforce their rights under the Code because they will feel that the Tribunal is not there to apply the Code and is not fulfilling its function.

14Here the applicant makes a statement about how he feels the Tribunal is doing its job and its implications for the broader public, but this is a speculative observation about what might happen in the future. The applicant has not pointed to anything in the Decision itself that raises an issue of general or public importance and therefore needs correction through reconsideration. This criterion for reconsideration is not met.

factors that outweigh the public interest in finality of decisions

15The applicant’s submissions do not address this criterion, and thus there is no basis to reconsider the Decision in relation to this criterion.

order

16The request for reconsideration is denied.