Felix v. Canadian Tire Corporation, 2015 HRTO 1233

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Hans Henry Felix

Applicant

-and-

Canadian Tire Corporation, Stephen Cornfield, and ProCom IT Staffing

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: September 16, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1233

Indexed as: Felix v. Canadian Tire Corporation

1The applicant has requested a reconsideration of Decision 2014 HRTO 1615.

2Under 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.

3Rule 26 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states:

26.1 Any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within 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;

(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.

4The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration 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 or an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of its case.

5The Decision in this case was issued on October 31, 2014. The Request for Reconsideration (“the Request”) was filed on September 3, 2015, almost a year after the Decision was released. As a result, it was not filed within 30 days as required by the Tribunal’s Rules.

6According to the Request, a potential witness has returned to Canada. This person apparently has knowledge of the relevant events and of the people involved.

7The Request provides no information about what evidence this person might provide that could support the applicant's allegation. According to the Request, this person was available at the time of the October 27, 2014 summary hearing but was not allowed to testify. The Tribunal does not typically hear evidence during a summary hearing. Instead, the summary hearing is an opportunity for an applicant to explain what evidence would be available at a hearing if the Application were to go forward. As noted in the Decision, at the summary hearing, the applicant did not identify evidence that would support his contention that the interview process was discriminatory or designed as a reprisal for the fact that he had earlier filed a human rights complaint.

8In addition to the fact that the Request for Reconsideration was not made in a timely way, the applicant has not established the existence of any of the criteria in the Tribunal’s Rule 26 that would lead to reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision.

9The Request is denied.