Dodson v. OPDI Logistics and Ontario Potato Dist. (Alliston) Inc. 1991, 2014 HRTO 1469

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Lance Dodson

Applicant

-and-

OPDI Logistics and Ontario Potato Dist. (Alliston) Inc. 1991, David Coomber, Robert Gill and Kim Morgan

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: October 1, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1469

Indexed as: Dodson v. OPDI Logistics and Ontario Potato Dist. (Alliston) Inc. 1991

SUBMISSIONS

Lance Dodson, Applicant

Osborne Barnwell, Counsel

1The applicant seeks reconsideration of the Decision, 2014 HRTO 1042, 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 falls outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). At para. 24 of the Decision I found as follows:

I find that the work performed by the offloaders/lumpers is an integral part of OPDI’s interprovincial/international transportation undertaking so as to essentially function as part of that undertaking. I understand that, from the applicant’s perspective, he was only responsible for offloading and lumping products and that he was not responsible with operating the trucks that crossed the provincial border. However, in my view, his work was integral and functionally-related with OPDI’s interprovincial/international transportation operations to find that it falls within federal jurisdiction.

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 seeks to re-argue the merits of his case. He also submits that the Tribunal should grant reconsideration because the Canadian Human Rights Commission (“CHRC”) has not yet accepted jurisdiction over his case. The applicant submits that he will be left without a forum to assert his rights if the Commission were to find that his complaint does not fall within federal jurisdiction.

ANALYSIS

7I do not accept the applicant’s submissions in which he attempts to re-argue his case. As noted above, a reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue one’s case. I do not agree with the applicant that the Decision is in conflict with established caselaw or Tribunal procedure and the reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance. I am of the view that the Decision is consistent with the caselaw relied upon at the hearing and cited in the Decision.

8I also do not agree with the applicant’s submission that my denial of his request for adjournment pending a decision of the CHRC on jurisdiction is contrary to established Tribunal procedure. The applicant filed a claim both with this Tribunal and the CHRC. One entity had to make the first decision as to jurisdiction. It is not contrary to Tribunal procedure for the Tribunal to make a jurisdictional decision even when a complaint is pending with the CHRC.

9I do agree with the applicant that he should not be left with a right and no remedy because both the Tribunal and the CHRC find that they have no jurisdiction over his Application. However, his recourse, if that occurs, is to seek judicial review of one of the decisions.

ORDER

10I deny the Request for Reconsideration for the reasons set out above.