Campbell v. Intercon Security Limited, 2015 HRTO 49

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Donald Campbell

Applicant

-and-

Intercon Security Limited

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: January 13, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 49

Indexed as: Campbell v. Intercon Security Limited

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Donald Campbell, Applicant

Self-represented

1On November 3, 2014, the Tribunal issued Decision 2014 HRTO 1619 dismissing the Application. On December 3, 2014, the applicant filed a Request to Reconsider (“the Request”). Included with the Request is an 80 page handwritten submission. As with other communications from the applicant, this submission is written on memoranda forms. On December 17, 2014, the applicant sent an additional submission, consisting of 138 pages, also written on memo forms.

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 the 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.

3Rule 26 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure deals with reconsideration requests:

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.

4In this case, the Request indicates that the Decision should be reconsidered because there are factors that outweigh the public interest in the finality of the Tribunal’s decisions. In particular, the Request states:

The November 3, 2014 “Decision” is riddled with factual errors, inaccuracies, omissions and misrepresentations – and biased, inadequate, misleading and unbalanced treatment/analysis in favour of the respondent.

5The first package of submissions in support of the Request are concerned with the applicant’s analysis of the evidence and his argument that the evidence shows that he was subjected to age discrimination when he was temporarily removed from his security station on February 23, 2012. The second package of submissions concerns the applicant’s view that the respondent withheld evidence and intimidated a witness who testified on the applicant’s behalf.

6Both of these comprehensive submissions are somewhat difficult to follow as they refer extensively to other comprehensive packages of submissions that the applicant provided before and after the hearing.

CONCLUSIONS

7The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsiderations reads in part as follows:

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.

8In this case, it is obvious that the applicant does not agree with the Decision. From his perspective, the Decision is clearly wrong because it did not agree with him that his removal from the desk for some hours on February 23, 2012 was discriminatory and because of his age.

9The purpose of a hearing is to allow the parties to present their evidence. The adjudicator must then make a decision. Since typically one party wins and the other loses, it is common that the losing party believes that the decision is wrong. The fact that the losing party does not agree with the result is not a sufficient reason to reconsider the Decision.

10In this case, the extensive submissions filed by the applicant in support of his Request for Reconsideration are essentially re-argument of the issues and evidence that were before me when I made the Decision. The second package of submissions reiterates the applicant’s concerns about the respondent and its counsel in respect of disclosure of evidence and alleged interference with his witness. These arguments and concerns were before me when I made my decision and are dealt with in the Decision.

11The applicant has not identified any of the factors set out in the Tribunal’s Rule 26 that would cause the Tribunal to reconsider the Decision. The Request for Reconsideration is denied on that basis.

DECISION

12The Request for Reconsideration is denied.