John Paul Raymond v. Vipond Inc., 2014 HRTO 933

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

John Paul Raymond

Applicant

-and-

Vipond Inc.

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle

Date: June 25, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 933

Indexed as: Raymond v. Vipond Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

John Paul Raymond, Applicant

Self-represented

Vipond Inc., Respondent

No submissions

Introduction

1On November 5, 2013, the Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, Raymond v. Vipond 2013 HRTO 1848, dismissing the Application. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision.

background

2The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to employment contrary to the Code. The respondent denied discriminating against the applicant but also requested that the Application be dismissed on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release with respect to the same subject matter of the Application and that to proceed with hearing the Application would amount to an abuse of the Tribunal’s process.

3The Tribunal’s Decision found that though the terms of the Release did not make specific reference to the Code, the there was nothing to indicate that such proceedings were excluded and it found that the terms of the Release the applicant signed were sufficiently all-encompassing to include proceedings under the Code. It found that when the Applicant signed the Release, all of the allegations which he relies upon as the basis for his Application, were known to him. It found that “[a]ccordingly, the Release was signed in respect of the same subject-matter of the Application”. It found that though the applicant faced financial economic pressures when his employment was terminated, the circumstances of the case did not amount to economic duress which would render a Release unenforceable. Accordingly, it found that to proceed with the Application in the face of the Release he signed, would be an abuse of the Tribunal’s process. The Application was dismissed.

THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

4The Request for Reconsideration provides the following reasons why the Tribunal should reconsider its Decision:

a. The decision is in conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance.

b. Other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

5The Tribunal has not required the respondent to file a Response to the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration.

DECISION

6Under 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.

7The Tribunal has issued Rules governing such requests as well as a Practice Direction to provide guidance to the community on the Tribunal’s exercise of its reconsideration powers (Practice Direction on Reconsideration, January 2008, last amended March 2010). Most relevant to this Decision is Rule 26 which 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.

8The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration states as follows:

Decisions of the Tribunal are 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 HRTO. 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.

9As 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.

10I find that the applicant has not met the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration.

11As indicated above, the applicant relies on Rule 26.5 (c) and (d). He submits that there is a public interest in hearing his Application in order to “deter future discrimination” by the respondent. He submits that the respondent violated his “inherent right to be free from racial discrimination” and from injury to his dignity. He submits that he and his family experienced discrimination and pain and suffering. He also submits that as the Release did not contain language specifically releasing the respondent from any Application to the HRTO, it should not preclude his Application from proceeding at the Tribunal.

12In support of its Request, the applicant essentially repeats the allegations made in his Application and arguments made orally before the Tribunal, and refers to his allegation that the respondent did not take his allegations of racial discrimination seriously and the fact that the Release does not make specific mention of an Application to the HRTO. A request for reconsideration is not an opportunity to restate or re-argue a position already advanced and considered.

13It is important to note that the issues raised in this Request were the subject of submissions before the Tribunal and were dealt with in its Decision. In Sigrist and Carson, above, the Tribunal stated that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case. 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.

14While the applicant clearly disagrees with the conclusions of the Tribunal, I am satisfied that his submissions on this Request do not establish that the Tribunal’s Decision conflicts with established jurisprudence.

15In sum, I find that the applicant has not established the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26 that would lead to reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision. The Request is denied.