Burman v. Adecco Employment Services Limited, 2014 HRTO 1768

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Arvind Burman

Applicant

-and-

Adecco Employment Services Limited

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: December 9, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1768

Indexed as: Burman v. Adecco Employment Services Limited

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Arvind Burman, Applicant

Self-represented

1The applicant requests Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision of October 23, 2014, 2014 HRTO 1567, dismissing this Application as abandoned because the applicant did not attend a teleconference hearing scheduled on October 21, 2014.

2The circumstances in which Reconsideration may be granted are set out in Rule 26.5:

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.

3The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration begins with the following statements:

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.

4The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration (the “Request”) on November 18, 2014, and relies upon Rule 26.5(b).

5Although the applicant relies upon Rule 26.5(b), he does not suggest that he did not receive notice of the hearing scheduled on October 21, 2014. Rather, the applicant states that he misunderstood the Notice of Hearing (the “Notice”). The Notice indicated that the time of the hearing was 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. The applicant submitted that he believed he could call in at any point between 9:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. and that, in fact, he called on the designated telephone number at 11 a.m. The applicant explained that he works on a night shift and it is difficult for him to attend an early appointment.

6Rule 26.5(b) does not apply to this matter, as the applicant clearly had notice of the hearing on October 21, 2014. In my view, the applicant’s explanation that he thought her could call in anytime between 9:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. is not credible and even if accurate does not amount to a compelling and extraordinary circumstance that would call for Reconsideration of the Decision to dismiss the Application.

7The Request for Reconsideration is denied.