HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Abderrahim Bouzid
Applicant
-and-
Woodchester Nissan Inc.
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Bouzid v. Woodchester Nissan Inc.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Abderrahim Bouzid, Applicant
Self-represented
1On November 28, 2013 the Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, 2013 HRTO 1969, dismissing the Application as having no reasonable prospect of success. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision.
THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
2The Request for Reconsideration provides reasons why the Tribunal should reconsider its Decision, including:
a. That the Tribunal failed to consider relevant information; and
b. The Tribunal sent two contradictory letters on April 9, 2013 and April 10, 2013; and
c. That during the summary hearing the applicant was pressured into speaking English instead of French and that he was not able to properly defend himself.
DECISION
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.
4Reconsideration 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.
5I find that the applicant has not met the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration.
6The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure indicate that an individual may participate in a proceeding in English or French and that interpretation services will be provided by the Tribunal, upon request, in accordance with the Tribunal’s policy (see Rule A6 and the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Requests for Language Interpretation).
7Since the Application was filed in French and the correspondence from the respondent was received in English a bilingual adjudicator was assigned to conduct the Summary Hearing. The Tribunal also retained the services of an interpreter.
8With respect to the applicant’s assertion that he was pressured into speaking English during the Summary Hearing I make the following observations. At the outset of the hearing, the applicant was informed that he had the opportunity to speak either French or English or both. The applicant indicated that he did not require interpretation services when the respondent’s representative was speaking in English because he understood the language. The respondent’s representative indicated that he did not understand any French and would require interpretation services. I advised the applicant therefore that when he spoke he would have to stop between sentences so that it could be interpreted into English. The applicant decided that he would make his submissions in English but that if this went to hearing he wanted it to proceed in French. I advised the applicant that at any time during the summary hearing he could speak either French or English.
9During the Summary Hearing the applicant spoke English in a fluent manner and was able to refer to the documents which were in English. There is simply no basis for the applicant’s allegation that he was not able to make submissions in support of his Application or respond to the respondent’s submissions during the Summary Hearing.
10There is no merit to the applicant’s assertion that there were contradictory letters sent by the Tribunal or that this is a ground to reconsider the Application. On April 9, 2013, the Tribunal sent an administrative letter to the respondent advising that it had to file a Response. However, on April 10, 2013, after having reviewed the Application a Vice-chair of the Tribunal determined that it was appropriate to hold a Summary Hearing and advised the respondent that it was not necessary for it to file a Response. On May 10, 2013, the Registrar sent a letter to the parties advising that they did not have to comply with the April 9, 2013 letter but had to comply with the directions in the April 10, 2013 Case Assessment Direction.
11Further, the applicant failed during the Summary Hearing and in his Request for Reconsideration to point to any facts or evidence which could link any of the events that he complains of in his Application to an act of reprisal pursuant to the Code.
12The applicant’s Request to reconsider is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 4th day of April, 2014.
« Signed by »
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair