Facey v. CH2M Hill Canada Limited, 2016 HRTO 1681

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Michael Facey

Applicant

-and-

CH2M Hill Canada Limited and Rufus Alester

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: December 23, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1681

Indexed as: Facey v. CH2M Hill Canada Limited

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Michael Facey, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1On December 8, 2016, the Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, 2016 HRTO 1586, dismissing the Application as having no reasonable prospect of success.

2The applicant seeks reconsideration of the Decision to dismiss his Application.

the law

3Section 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.

4Rule 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 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 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:

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 power to reconsider its own decisions, it is not obliged to do so. There is no right to have a decision reconsidered by the Tribunal. It may decide when reconsideration is advisable, both through the consideration of rules setting out conditions for the exercise of its discretion, and through the application of its discretion on a case-by-case basis.

7In the applicant’s Request, he indicates that the reason why he is making the Request is the Decision is in conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance.

8In the details section of the Request, the applicant does not directly address how the Decision is in conflict with established jurisprudence or what factors exist that may outweigh the public interest in the finality of the Decision.

9The applicant’s Request contains a number of unsupported allegations questioning my integrity and the integrity of my Decision: that it was a “biased analysis”; that I made “numerous errors and omissions” in the Decision that amounted to “a gross dereliction of duty”; that I demonstrated an “extreme lack of interest and diligence”; that I made an “unconscionable” finding; that my logic was “offensive and twisted”; that I was “insensitive, irrational, unrealistic”; and, that I am “unqualified to preside over human rights cases”. In the end he “respectfully” requests that his case be assigned to a Vice-chair whose “education, training, advocacy and diligence for human rights matters are well documented”. He then named two Vice-chairs who would be acceptable to him.

10It is apparent that the reason the applicant has filed the Request is that he is upset and disagrees with the Decision I made. As I have indicated above, reconsideration is neither an appeal nor an opportunity to reargue a case. Nor is it a right.

11The applicant has not met the criteria set out in Rule 26.5 that must be satisfied in order for the Tribunal to grant a reconsideration request.

order

12The Request for Reconsideration is denied.