James v. Ontario Secondary School Teachers Federation, 2016 HRTO 1351

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Anthony James

Applicant

-and-

Ontario Secondary School Teachers Federation, Paul Elliot, Pierre Cote, Andy Simpson, Kerri Ferguson, Dale Leckie, Suzette Clark, Cathy Renfrew, Scott Marshall, Florina Ditta, Randi MacDonald, Susan Luft, Jim Spray, Rob Dubyk, Lee Ann Gulyas, Olga De Melo, Nancy Vogal and Sharon Grant

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: October 18, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1351

Indexed as: James v. Ontario Secondary School Teachers Federation

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Anthony James, Applicant

Self-represented

1This Decision explains why the Tribunal will not reconsider its earlier Decision to dismiss the applicant’s Application. On August 17, 2016, in Decision 2016 HRTO 1099, I determined that the Application had no reasonable prospect of success.

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.

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.

3The Tribunal has issued Rules governing such requests as well as a Practice Direction to provide guidance to the community on the Tribunal’s exercise of its reconsideration powers (Practice Direction on Reconsideration, January 2008, last amended April 2014). Most relevant to this Decision is Rule 26 which states:

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.

4The applicant relies on 26.5 (c) and (d).

5The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration includes the following statements:

Reconsideration is a discretionary remedy; there is no right to have a decision reconsidered by the HRTO. Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to change the way it presented its case.

6As is evident from the above, reconsideration is a discretionary remedy. That is, while the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to reopen and reconsider its own decisions, it is not obliged to do so. It may decide when reconsideration is advisable, both through the promulgation of rules setting out conditions for the exercise of its discretion, and through the application of its discretion on a case-by-case basis.

7The Decision which is the subject of the applicant’s request resulted from a summary hearing which was held by teleconference. The applicant argues in paragraphs 1 – 16 of his submissions that the way I conducted the summary hearing breached principals of natural justice because he was not given an opportunity to fully present his case. In support of this he states that the hearing was terminated by me without notice, explanation or justification.

8The applicant is incorrect. I had read the Application. The hearing was terminated at the point in time when, in my opinion, I had heard the relevant submissions of the parties including the applicant’s relevant submissions. The Tribunal need only use as much time as is necessary to hear the arguments of the parties on the issues that it determines are needed in order to decide the matter it is dealing with.

9The applicant is correct that I interrupted his presentation. I did so in order to focus his submissions on the essential questions in the summary hearing, namely, whether there was any evidence direct or indirect that could support the applicant’s theory of the case. I gave the applicant ample opportunity to make submissions on this issue. He was repetitive, failed to take instructions and persisted in arguing matters that were not relevant to the issue at hand. It is appropriate and lawful for the Tribunal to proactively identify the issues which need to be determined and to direct the parties to focus on those issues.

10For the above reasons, I conclude that there was no breach of natural justice in the conduct of the summary hearing. This argument is rejected.

11The balance of the applicant’s submissions on reconsideration is essentially an attempt to reargue his case. As is indicated in the Practice Direction, the purpose of the reconsideration process does not include allowing parties to reargue the issues that have already been considered and decided. For these reasons I conclude that there is no basis to reconsider the Decision in relation to the issues set out in the balance of the applicant’s submissions on reconsideration.

12The applicant suggests that his request raises a matter of public importance because it is a matter of general or public importance that unfair decisions be corrected. I understand that the applicant disagrees with the Decision and thinks that it was arrived at through an unfair process. However, I have explained why I do not think there is a basis to reconsider the Decision.

13While the outcome is obviously of importance to the applicant personally, every reconsideration request the Tribunal receives is important to the party making it. The applicant has not pointed to any issues that raise questions of broader significance than the matters raised between the parties to this particular Application. For these reasons I reject this argument for reconsideration.

order

14The request for reconsideration is denied.