Alagathurai Sivaskaran v. Jeld-Wen of Canada Ltd., 2014 HRTO 445

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Alagathurai Sivaskaran

Applicant

-and-

Jeld-Wen of Canada Ltd.

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman

Date: March 28, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 445

Indexed as: Sivaskaran v. Jeld-Wen of Canada Ltd.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Alagathurai Sivaskaran, Applicant

Self-represented

1This Decision explains why the Tribunal will not reconsider its Decision in 2014 HRTO 174 of February 5, 2014 which dismissed the applicant’s Application on grounds of delay.

2The Application alleged discrimination with respect to employment because of place of origin contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). It was filed on August 8, 2013. The Application was dismissed because the last alleged incident of discrimination took place on August 24, 2011, the Application was filed more than a year after that last alleged incident, and the applicant had not demonstrated that his delay in filing the Application was incurred in good faith.

3In the present request the applicant argues that the Decision to dismiss his Application should be reconsidered because the Decision is in conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance. A letter provided by the applicant in support of his request does not address this ground for reconsideration. Instead it states that the applicant sought the assistance of the Human Rights Legal Support Centre (“the Centre”) in September of 2011 and that it failed to tell him about the need to file his Application within a year of the last incident of discrimination.

4Appended to the letter is correspondence from the Centre to the applicant’s sister about an Application she eventually filed with the Tribunal, but which has nothing to do with his Application. Also attached is documentation he filed with the Ministry of Labour relating to a claim he made under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c.41.

5Section 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.

6The 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.

7The applicant has not shown how the Decision dismissing his Application meets any of the criteria for reconsideration. At best, he is trying to reargue the issues that he put forward when the Tribunal originally asked him to provide submissions to show why his Application should not be dismissed for delay. At that time he maintained that various advocacy organisations had failed him by providing him with wrong advice about how to file an Application. That issue was addressed in the Decision dismissing his Application. A request for reconsideration is not intended to give the requesting party an opportunity to reargue issues already considered and decided.

order

8The request for reconsideration is denied.