HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Juan Reyes
Applicant
-and-
Centric Health Corporation
Respondent
A N D B E T W E E N:
Juan Reyes
Applicant
-and-
Centric Health Corporation
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee
Indexed as: Reyes v. Centric Health Corporation
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Juan Reyes, Applicant
Self-represented
Centric Health Corporation, Respondent
Saba Zia, Counsel
Introduction
1The purpose of this Reconsideration Decision is to address the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, 2014 HRTO 931.
BACKGROUND
2On June 28, 2010, the applicant began working for the respondent. On April 13, 2011, the respondent terminated his employment.
3Following the termination, the applicant filed an Application with the Ontario Labour Relations Board (“OLRB”) under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 41, and an Application with this Tribunal under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (“Code”), which alleged, among other things, that the respondent had discriminated against him.
4On November 7, 2013, the parties signed Minutes of Settlement in which they agreed to a full and final settlement of the Applications before the OLRB and this Tribunal.
5On November 27, 2013, and January 2, 2014, the applicant filed two Applications for Contravention of Settlement with the Tribunal, which alleged that the respondent had contravened two clauses of the Minutes of Settlement. Specifically, he alleged that the respondent contravened clause 15, which required the respondent to send him a cheque within a specific time line, and clause 13, which required the respondent to provide him with a letter summarizing his job duties.
6The hearing of the merits of the Applications for Contravention of Settlement took place on April 11, 2014. Both parties made oral submissions, and referred to various documents which they had filed in advance of the hearing, including the Minutes of Settlement and email exchanges between them with respect to complying with the Minutes.
7On June 24, 2014, the Tribunal issued a final Decision, 2014 HRTO 931, which upheld the Applications in part, and made the following orders and directions:
The respondent contravened clause 15 of the Minutes of Settlement by couriering the cheque to the applicant three days late.
It is not appropriate to make an order to remedy the contravention of clause 15.
The respondent did not contravene clause 13 of the Minutes of Settlement.
To avoid a contravention of clause 13 and further litigation and disputes, the respondent is directed to provide the applicant with a revised verification of employment letter, which includes a summary of the first bullet point of his job description, and to place the summary as the last sentence in the first paragraph of the letter.
8On July 23, 2014, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision. He attached written submissions in support of his Request. On August 7, 2014, the respondent filed written submissions in response to the applicant’s Request. On August 11, 2014, the applicant filed written submissions in reply to the respondent’s submissions.
ANALYSIS
9Section 45.7(1) of the Code provides that any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may request that the Tribunal reconsider a final decision in accordance with the Tribunal rules.
10Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that 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.
11The Tribunal has also issued a Practice Direction on Reconsideration to provide guidance to the community on the nature of the reconsideration process. The Practice Direction 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.
12In his Request for Reconsideration, the applicant indicated that the Tribunal’s Decision should be reconsidered in accordance with Rule 26.5 a), c) and d).
13The applicant’s main argument was that the Decision should be reconsidered because it was prejudiced, biased, discriminatory, and patently unreasonable because it did not uphold his Applications for Contravention of Settlement in their entirety and award him a monetary remedy. I disagree. The applicant repeated many of the same arguments that he made in advance of and at the hearing, and explained why he disagrees with the Decision. However, he did not clearly explain how this argument falls within the criteria set out in Rule 26.5 a), c) and d). Reconsideration is not an opportunity for a party to reargue the case, and is not available simply because a party disagrees with the Tribunal’s Decision. Accordingly, I do not see how this argument falls within the criteria set out in Rule 26.5 a), c) and d).
14The applicant also argued that the Decision should be reconsidered because the Decision failed to acknowledge that he identified himself as Aboriginal Métis during the hearing. I disagree. The Decision did not mention that the applicant self-identified as Aboriginal Métis because it was not relevant to the issues in dispute during the proceeding, namely, whether the respondent contravened two clauses of the Minutes of Settlement. Accordingly, I do not see how this argument falls within the criteria set out in Rule 26.5 a), c) and d).
15The applicant also argued that the Decision should be reconsidered because the Tribunal violated his rights when it did not allow him to digitally record the hearing because he did not know how to makes copies of the recording to provide to the respondent and the Tribunal. He argued that he has a legal right to record his “private” communications, and does not require the Tribunal’s permission to do so. I disagree.
16The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Recording Hearings provides that if a party wishes to record a hearing, he or she must get the permission of the panel, and provide a copy of the recording to the other parties and the Tribunal. During my introduction, I informed the parties about this provision in the Practice Direction, and asked them if anyone was recording the hearing. The applicant responded that he was recording the hearing, but would stop doing so because he did not know how to make copies of the recording.
17To be clear, the Tribunal would have granted the applicant permission to record the hearing if he had agreed to provide a copy of the recording to the respondent and the Tribunal. With respect, it is not difficult to make copies of a digital recording. Parties, including those who are self-represented and unsophisticated, who want to record a hearing generally do not have difficulty complying with this provision in the Practice Direction, particularly when they are using a digital recorder as the applicant was in the case at hand. The applicant, who is highly educated, would not have had difficulties making copies of his recording if he had been inclined to take steps to find out how to do so.
18Moreover, the hearing before the Tribunal was not a “private” communication; it was a public hearing. The Tribunal, which is publicly-funded, has a duty to dispose of applications fairly, justly and expeditiously. See section 40 of the Code and Rule 1.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules. To fulfill this duty, the Tribunal has a right to control its own process, including requiring parties who wish to record a hearing to provide a copy of the recording to the other parties and the Tribunal. The applicant obviously disagrees with this provision in the Practice Direction, but, with respect, he has no expertise or experience in managing hearings at an administrative tribunal, which receives thousands of applications each year.
19Accordingly, I do not see how the applicant’s argument about not being allowed to digitally record the hearing falls within the criteria set out in Rule 26.5 a), c) and d).
20The applicant also argued that the Decision should be reconsidered because the Tribunal did not give him the opportunity to question the respondent. I disagree. The main facts at issue were not in dispute, and where there were minor factual disputes, they were resolvable through the parties’ submissions and the documents that they both filed with the Tribunal. The applicant did not clearly explain, and I do not see, why he needed to question or cross-examine anyone from the respondent during the hearing. Accordingly, I do not see how this argument falls within the criteria set out in Rule 26.5 a), c) and d).
ORDER
21The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 28th day of May, 2015.
“Signed by”
Ken Bhattacharjee
Vice-chair