Jan Sikorski v. The Corporation of the City of Vaughan, 2016 HRTO 215

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jan Sikorski Applicant

-and-

The Corporation of the City of Vaughan Respondent

-and-

Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 905 Intervenor

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl Date: February 18, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 215 Indexed as: Sikorski v. Vaughan (City)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Jan Sikorski, Applicant Self-represented

Introduction

1On December 29, 2015, the Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, 2015 HRTO 1740, dismissing the Application. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision.

BACKGROUND

2The Tribunal’s Decision found that the Application should be dismissed pursuant to s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), because the substance of the Application had been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding.

THE LAW

3Under 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.

4The 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.

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

Decisions of the Tribunal are generally considered final and are not subject to appeal. However, parties may request that the Tribunal reconsider a final decision it has made. Reconsideration is a discretionary remedy; there is no right to have a decision reconsidered by the Tribunal. Generally, the Tribunal will only reconsider a decision where it finds that there are compelling and extraordinary circumstances for doing so and where these circumstances outweigh the public interest in finality of orders and decisions. 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.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

7I find that the applicant has not met the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration.

8In his Request the applicant checked the box indicating that the reason for his Request is that there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier. However, other than indicating that some of his emails to the Tribunal may not have reached the Application folder prior to his hearing, he fails to identify any new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case.

9The Applicant also argues that his case is “of huge public importance”. He claims that the respondent “resorted to (well documented) lies and deception and that the respondent fabricated evidence. He also claims that the “Intervenor got involved in fabricating evidence (together with the Responder)”. These are bald allegations. I do not see how these allegations would lead one to conclude that the issues raised in the proposed reconsideration involve matters of general or public importance.

10To re-open the hearing in these circumstances would undermine the Tribunal’s process and the public interest in the finality of its decisions.

11It is evident from the applicant’s submissions that he disagrees with a number of findings that were made on the evidence presented. A Request for reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue the merits of the Application.

ORDER

12The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.