HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ravi Chander

Applicant

-and-

Aon Reed Stenhouse Inc.

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: March 10, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 314

Indexed as: Chander v. Aon Reed Stenhouse Inc.

Introduction

1The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider Decision 2014 HRTO 83 (“the Decision”). The Decision was issued on January 21, 2014. The Request for Reconsideration (“the Request”) was filed on February 16, 2014.

2In his Application to the Tribunal, the applicant alleged that he had experienced discrimination in employment because of race, colour and ethnic origin. Following a three day hearing and post-hearing written submissions, the Decision dismissed the Application. The Request asks that the Decision be reconsidered because the applicant does not agree that the Application should have been dismissed.

3Under section 45.7 of the Code, the Tribunal may, at the request of a party or on its own initiative, reconsider its decisions in accordance with Tribunal’s Rules.

45.7(1) Any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may request that the Tribunal reconsider its decision in accordance with the Tribunal rules.

(2) Upon request under subsection (1) or on its own motion, the Tribunal may reconsider its decision in accordance with its rules.

4Rule 26 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states:

26.1 Any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within (thirty) 30 days of the date of the decision

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.

5The 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.

6As is evident from the above, reconsideration is a discretionary remedy. That is, while the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to reopen and reconsider its own decisions, it is not obliged to do so. It may decide when reconsideration is advisable, both through the promulgation of rules setting out conditions for the exercise of its discretion, and through the application of its discretion on a case-by-case basis.

The Request for Reconsideration

7The Request filed by the applicant is essentially a re-statement of the submissions the applicant made at the hearing. He has provided a paragraph by paragraph discussion of the Decision and stated why he does not agree with the Decision. This discussion does not introduce any new facts or evidence not presented at the hearing.

8The Request sets out a number of complaints about the hearing process. The applicant alleges that the Decision overlooked important documents and suggests that the result would have been different if these documents had been considered. The basis for the belief that not all the documents were considered appears to be that not all of the documents produced are referred to in the Decision. The purpose of a Decision is to set out the relevant evidence and the adjudicative findings. The fact that a particular document is not referred to does not mean that it was not considered. In a case such at this where a large number of documents are filed, there is no purpose in referring to every document and a failure to do so does not provide a basis to reconsider the Decision. The applicant has not identified any particular document that he feels was not considered and which would have changed the result if it had been considered.

9During the hearing, it emerged that the applicant was replaced by a young white person. The applicant stated that he had not known earlier that this person was a young person. The applicant suggested that this showed that he had also been subject to discrimination on the basis of age. At the hearing, the applicant agreed that this ground of alleged discrimination had not been identified in the Application. He did not ask that the Application be amended to include age as he understood that this could result in delay of an already complex case. In the Request, the applicant presents a different account. He alleges that I “vehemently and strongly” objected to his observation that the person who replaced him was younger. The basis for this allegation is not clear and it is not consistent with how the matter was dealt with at the hearing.

10The applicant has reiterated his view that the termination of his employment was illegal because he was not given an adequate written warning prior to the termination. This view is based on the applicant’s understanding of employment law and what constitutes unjust dismissal. At the hearing the respondent noted that the applicant’s employment was not terminated for cause and so progressive discipline was not required. The applicant continues to disagree. As noted at the hearing and in the Decision, this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider whether a person was unjustly dismissed unless the dismissal was discriminatory. While the applicant of course believes that the dismissal was discriminatory, this allegation was not sustained. As a result, the Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to determine if the applicant was unjustly terminated, or whether his belief that he could not be legally terminated without receiving written warnings.

11As noted in the Decision, the applicant’s view that the termination of his employment was unfair and unjust is understandable. He had worked with dedication for many years and had a strong loyalty to his employer. However, the issue in the Application was not whether the termination of the applicant’s employment was unfair or unjust. The issue was whether the termination of the applicant’s employment was discriminatory.

12It is apparent that the applicant continues to believe that the termination of his employment was discriminatory. However, the applicant’s continuing belief that this is the case does not provide a basis to reconsider the Decision. As noted above, a request for reconsideration is not an opportunity to restate or re-argue a position already advanced and considered. Once the parties have had the opportunity to present their evidence and arguments to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal has made a decision disposing of the issues, parties are entitled to treat the matter as closed, subject to limited exceptions. I find that the submissions in this Request amount to additional argument on issues already fully canvassed before the Tribunal. For these reasons, the Request for Reconsideration must be denied.

Decision

13The Request for Reconsideration is denied.