Chivers v. National Steel Car Ltd., 2016 HRTO 1489

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Dave Chivers

Applicant

-and-

National Steel Car Ltd. and John Durlov

Respondents

-and-

United Steel Workers, Local 7135

Intervenor

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume

Date: November 22, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1489

Indexed as: Chivers v. National Steel Car Ltd.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Dave Chivers, Applicant

Grant Howell, Representative

1The applicant seeks reconsideration of the Final Decision, 2015 HRTO 843 (“Decision”), dismissing his Application.

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 Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (“Rules”) that would cause me to reconsider my Decision.

Applicable Principles relating to reconsideration

3In 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 closed, subject to limited exceptions.

4The 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.

5The applicant relies on 26.5 c).

The Decision being challenged

6In the Decision, I dismissed the Application pursuant to section 45.1 on the basis that the substance of the Application had been appropriately dealt with in an arbitration proceeding. I also dismissed a request by the applicant to amend his Application.

THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

7The applicant disagrees with the correctness of my Decision. He argues that I did not deal with his reprisal allegations. On the contrary, I indicated in the Decision that the reprisal allegations were based on the same facts as the discrimination allegations (failure to recall and failure to accommodate) and as a result, the substance of those allegations had also been appropriately dealt with by the arbitrator. I also provided reasons for refusing to amend the Application.

8Fundamentally, the applicant disagrees with my decision. However, I have no authority to revisit my decisions on that basis.

9With respect to the timing of this decision, the applicant filed this reconsideration request over one year ago. As a result of an administrative error, the reconsideration request was not brought to my attention until October 27, 2016. I apologize for any inconvenience that may have caused the parties.

ORDER

10The Request for Reconsideration is denied for the reasons set out above.