Shi v. Holcim (Canada) Inc., 2014 HRTO 450

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Weihua Shi

Applicant

-and-

Holcim (Canada) Inc. and Anna Maccani

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: March 31, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 450

Indexed as: Shi v. Holcim (Canada) Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Weihua Shi, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1The purpose of this Reconsideration Decision is to address the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, 2013 HRTO 1865.

BACKGROUND

2On June 5, 2013, the applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), which alleged that the respondents discriminated against her because of her family status and marital status with respect to employment, and subjected her to reprisal. The allegations in the Application were essentially the same as those raised in two previous Applications, which the applicant had filed, and the Tribunal had dismissed.

3On October 29, 2013, a preliminary hearing took place. On November 6, 2013, the Tribunal issued a Decision, which made the following orders:

1. This Application is dismissed because it is an abuse of the Tribunal’s process;

2. The applicant is declared to be a vexatious litigant with respect to the respondents, and is required to obtain permission from an adjudicator of the Tribunal to file further applications against the respondents; and

3. If the applicant requests permission to file a future application against the respondents, she must file a complete Application, and include written submissions that explain why the Application is a legitimate assertion of her Code rights, is not vexatious, and is not an abuse of process.

4On November 15, 2013, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision.

ANALYSIS

5Section 45.7(1) of the Code provides that any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may request that the Tribunal reconsider a final decision in accordance with the Tribunal rules.

6Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that 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.

7The Tribunal has also issued a Practice Direction on Reconsideration to provide guidance to the community on the nature of the reconsideration process. The Practice Direction states, in part:

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.

8In her Request for Reconsideration, the applicant indicated that the Tribunal’s Decision should be reconsidered in accordance with Rule 26.5 a), c) and d). However, in her submissions in support of her Request, she did not clearly explain how her Request falls within the criteria set out in Rule 26.5 a), c) and d). Instead, she repeated the same arguments that she made in advance of and at the hearing, and made new arguments that she could have made, but did not make, at the hearing.

9Reconsideration is not available simply because a party disagrees with the Tribunal’s Decision, and it is not an opportunity for a party to reargue the case.

ORDER

10The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.