Ahmed Idle v. Mevotech Inc., 2015 HRTO 1749

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ahmed Idle

Applicant

-and-

Mevotech Inc.

Respondent

-and-

United Brotherhood of Retail, Food and Service and Trade International Union

Intervenor

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel
Date: December 30, 2015
Citation: 2015 HRTO 1749
Indexed as: Idle v. Mevotech Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Ahmed Idle, Applicant
Self-represented

Introduction

1The applicant seeks reconsideration of my Decision dated November 13, 2015, 2015 HRTO 1528, dismissing his Application as untimely.

2For the reasons set out below, I find that the applicant has not established the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26.5 of the Tribunals Rules of Procedure (“Rules”) that would cause me to reconsider my Decision.

The Decision being challenged

3By Application filed on July 24, 2014, the applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against him because of race, colour and disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against him on the basis of race by passing him over for promotions starting in 2011. The applicant also alleged that the respondent discriminated against him based on disability when it failed to provide reasonable accommodations for his disability and terminated his employment in April 2013.

4At the preliminary hearing of the Application, the applicant submitted that the Application was timely because the final incident of discrimination took place in August 2013 when he submitted his last Functional Abilities Form (“FAF”) to the Respondent. The applicant submitted that the August 2013 FAF was a separate incident of discrimination. I did not agree. I found that respondent’s alleged failure to respond to the applicant’s August 2013 FAF was not a separate incident of discrimination but a continuing effect of its earlier decision-making relating to the previous identical FAFs submitted by the applicant. Therefore, the last incident of alleged discrimination occurred more than one year before the filing of the Application. I dismissed the Application as untimely as the applicant failed to provide a good faith reason for his delay in filing the Application.

Applicable Principles

5In Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34, the Tribunal stated that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case. Once the Tribunal has made a decision in a case, parties are entitled to treat the matter as completed and final, subject to limited exceptions.

6The circumstances in which a Request for Reconsideration may be granted are set out in Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules:

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.

THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

7The applicant seeks reconsideration under Rules 26.5(a) and (d). The applicant did not make any submissions in support of his Request; he simply attached to his Request a doctor’s note dated August 19, 2013, a letter from the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board dated April 23, 2013, a doctor’s note dated July 10, 2015, and what appears to be a portion of a letter written to the applicant by someone who provided him with legal advice.

Analysis

8As noted above, I am dismissing the Request for Reconsideration as the applicant has failed to establish the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules that might lead to reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision.

9None of the materials filed by the applicant alter my conclusions regarding the untimeliness of his Application. None of these materials change the fact that the last incident of alleged discrimination occurred more than a year before the applicant filed his Application. They also do not provide any reasonable explanation for the applicant’s delay in filing his Application.

Order

10For the above reasons, the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.