Villeneuve v. Sudbury (City) – Pioneer Manor, 2016 HRTO 1053

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Linda Villeneuve

Applicant

-and-

The City of Greater Sudbury – Pioneer Manor

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott

Date: August 9, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1053

Indexed as: Villeneuve v. Sudbury (City) – Pioneer Manor

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Linda Villeneuve, Applicant

Cheryl MacKinnon, Paralegal

Introduction

1This Decision addresses a Request for Reconsideration filed by the applicant in relation to the Tribunal’s decision 2016 HRTO 803 dated June 14, 2016, which dismissed the Application for delay (the “Decision”). The applicant’s representative filed a Request for Reconsideration on July 13, 2016. On July 27, 2016, the applicant’s representative advised the Tribunal that she is no longer representing the applicant.

2The applicant asserts there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier.

3The sole basis for the Request for Reconsideration is an alleged error in paragraph 7 of the Decision where I state the applicant had the assistance of legal counsel in preparing her Duty of Fair Representation complaint (“DFR complaint”) before the Ontario Labour Relations Board in May 2012. The applicant states she did not have the assistance of legal counsel in preparing that complaint.

analysis

Test for Reconsideration

4Under 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.

5The Tribunal has issued Rules governing such requests as well as a Practice Direction to provide guidance on the Tribunal’s exercise of its reconsideration powers. Rule 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 from 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.

6The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration states reconsideration is a discretionary remedy: there is no right to have a decision reconsidered by the Tribunal. It affirms that reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to change the way he or she presented their case.

Grounds for Reconsideration

7The applicant submits an error was made in paragraph 7 of the Decision where I state the applicant had the assistance of legal counsel in preparing her DFR complaint before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

8During the preliminary hearing, the following questions were asked about the DFR complaint:

Respondent’s counsel: At tab 13 of our book of documents, there is a confirmation of filing the duty of fair representation complaint. The last page of that document is Appendix “A”. The first person named is a lawyer in Sudbury, Richard Pharand. Was he assisting the applicant?

Applicant: I was looking for lawyer and went into his office. I asked him a few questions. I knew I couldn’t afford him. No, I did not hire lawyer.

Tribunal: did he prepare the document (referring to the confirmation of filing)?

Applicant: he did that.

9At paragraph 7 of the recitation of facts, I state the applicant had the assistance of legal counsel in preparing her DFR complaint. The applicant states that is incorrect. I agree with the applicant that it would have been more precise for me to say legal counsel assisted her in preparing the confirmation of filing document as that was the document before me. I did not have the actual DFR complaint.

10However, nothing turns on this fact. The finding that is relevant to the decision to dismiss the Application for delay is set out at paragraph 20 of the Decision where I state the applicant had access to a lawyer on the DFR complaint and had the means to inquire about her human rights. That fact remains unchallenged. The applicant could have inquired about her human rights at that time and seemingly chose not to do so.

11For these reasons, the applicant has failed to establish that there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case. As such, her Request for Reconsideration is denied.

order

12The Reconsideration Request is denied.