Marsh v. ADGA Group Inc., 2014 HRTO 752

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ronald Marsh

Applicant

-and-

ADGA Group Inc.

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: May 27, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 752

Indexed as: Marsh v. ADGA Group Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Ronald Marsh, Applicant

Self-represented

1The applicant requests Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision in Marsh v. ADGA Group Inc., 2014 HRTO 503, dismissing the Application for delay.

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 on April 28, 2014 and relies upon Rules 26.5(a), 26.5(b) and 26.5(c). In my view, however, the applicant did not meet the criteria under any of these Rules.

5The applicant referred to redress procedures under the “Security Intelligence Review”, but did not explain how they provided a basis for Reconsideration. The applicant also attached several documents, including e-mail messages, a memorandum, a Record of Employment, and the applicant’s Tax Return Summary for 2007. None of these documents is dated later than 2009.

6To meet the test set out in Rule 26.5(a), the party requesting Reconsideration must establish that there are new facts that could potentially be determinative of the case and establish that these new facts could not reasonably have been obtained earlier. The Tribunal has found that the absence of either of these requirements is fatal to a Request for Reconsideration under Rule 26.5(a). See M.K. v. 1217993 Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1362. None of the documents the applicant submitted could in my view be potentially determinative of the issue of delay and in any event these documents are clearly not new and appear to have been in the applicant’s possession for several years. In any event, the applicant did not explain why the documents were not submitted earlier. Consequently the applicant has not met the requirements of Rule 26.5 (a).

7The applicant made no submissions regarding how Rule 26.5(b) is engaged in this matter or regarding how the Tribunal’s decision is in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure or how the proposed Reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance.

8The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.