HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Gregory Bloom
Applicant
-and-
Ontario Ironworkers/Rodmen Benefit Plan Administrators Corporation
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Kevin Cleghorn
Indexed as: Bloom v. Ontario Ironworkers/Rodmen Benefit Plan Administrators Corporation
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
)
Gregory Bloom, Applicant ) Self-Represented
)
[1] This was an Application under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in goods, services and facilities on the basis of race, ancestry and ethnic origin.
[2] On October 13, 2015, the Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, 2015 HRTO 1363, dismissing the Application following a Summary Hearing. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision.
BACKGROUND
3The Tribunal’s Decision found that the Application should be dismissed because it had no reasonable prospect of success.
THE RECONSIDERATION REQUEST
4The Applicant provides the following reasons as to why the Tribunal should reconsider its Decision:
The decision is in conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance.
ANALYSIS
[5] Under section 45.7 of the Code, the Tribunal may, at the request of a party or on its own initiative, reconsider its decisions. Rule 45.7 states:
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.
6The Tribunal has outlined Rules governing such requests as well as issuing a Practice Direction to provide guidance to parties pertaining to the Tribunal’s exercise of its powers to reconsider decisions. Rule 26.5, in particular, states:
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.
[7] With respect to reconsideration, the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration (as amended in June, 2014) states the following:
Parties may ask the HRTO to reconsider a final decision. The HRTO may also reconsider a decision on its own initiative where it considers it appropriate.
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.
The rules for reconsideration are found in Rule 26 of the Rules of Procedure. A request for reconsideration will only be granted if the request meets one of the requirements in Rule 26.5.
8Reconsideration is wholly a discretionary remedy. The Tribunal has the jurisdiction to reopen and reconsider its own decisions, but it is not obliged to do so. It may decide if and when a decision may be reconsidered, both through prescribing rules setting out conditions for the exercise of its discretion, and through the application of its discretion in a given case.
[9] I find that the applicant has not met the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria set out in Rule 26.5 to justify reconsideration.
[10] The applicant relies on Rule 26.5(c) and, as indicated, argues that the “decision is in conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance”. The applicant does not refer to any Tribunal (or human rights) case law in his submissions, nor does he point to any Rules which have been ignored or violated. The issue of payment of his pension and/or his entitlement to benefits is of considerable importance to him, but is not a matter of general or public importance.
[11] Although it is quite clear that the applicant does not agree with the Decision, his mere disagreement in the absence of any reference to any of the criteria outlined in the Rules is not a reason to reconsider a Final Decision. The applicant, for the most part, repeats his argument made in the course of the Summary Hearing. Much of his argument relates to the constitutionality of the actions of the federal government in garnisheeing his pension entitlement. He does not establish any basis for a human rights dispute as between him and the respondent, nor does his attempt to frame the case in that manner make it “a matter of general or public importance”.
[12] In his submissions on the Request for Reconsideration, the applicant does refer now to racist and/or dismissive language used by a representative of the respondent, but that information cannot be considered on a Request for Reconsideration. The evidence was available at the time of the Summary Hearing and should have been referred to in the course of same: see Rule 26.5 (a). Reconsideration is not an opportunity for a party to re-argue or change they way they presented their case. There is no basis for the Tribunal to exercise its discretion in this instance and reconsider the Decision.
DECISION
[13] On the basis of the forgoing, the request is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 7th day of January, 2016.
“Signed by”
Kevin Cleghorn
Member