James v Mississauga (City), 2016 HRTO 328

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Anthony James

Applicant

-and-

The Corporation of the City of Mississauga and Ashleigh Cleva

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren

Date: March 14, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 328

Indexed as: James v Mississauga (City)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Anthony James, Applicant

Self-represented

INTRODUCTION

1The purpose of this Reconsideration Decision is to address the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, 2016 HRTO 13. This Decision dismissed the Application on the basis that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of demonstrating that his rights under the Code have been violated by establishing a link between the respondents’ actions and his race, or that he experienced reprisal.

BACKGROUND

2On January 20, 2015, the applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), which alleged that the respondents discriminated against him with respect to employment because of his race and subjected him to a reprisal for having claimed his rights under the Code.

3A Summary Hearing took place and on January 6, 2016, the Tribunal issued a Decision, which dismissed the Application on a preliminary basis because it had no reasonable prospect of success.

4On February 5, 2016, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision.

ANALYSIS

5Section 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.

6Rule 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 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.

7The 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.

8As 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. 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.

9In the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration he does not directly address the criteria for granting a reconsideration as set out in Rule 26.5 above. His Request contains further documentation about the corporate respondent’s employee recruitment policy and procedures. He points to the stated procedures and the respondents’ alleged deviation from these procedures during his recruitment process.

10The applicant does not indicate that these documents are new evidence that could be determinative of the case and that he could not have reasonably obtained earlier. The documents do not establish any clearer link between his allegations about his experiences during the recruitment process and his race.

11The submissions repeat the arguments made during the summary hearing and restate a number of the allegations that were set out in the narrative of his Application.

12It is apparent that the reason the applicant has filed the Request for Reconsideration is that he disagrees with my Decision. As I have indicated above, reconsideration is not an opportunity to reargue a case.

13The 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

14The Request for Reconsideration is denied.