Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Gavin Salisbury Applicant
-and-
Independent Electrical System Operator and Allan Rosenfeld Respondents
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: David Muir Date: March 30, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 396 Indexed as: Salisbury v. Independent Electrical System Operator
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Gavin Salisbury, Applicant Self-represented
Independent Electrical System Operator, Respondent Richard J. Charney, Counsel
Allan Rosenfeld, Respondent Mira Novell, Counsel
Introduction
1On December 15, 2015, the Tribunal issued its Interim Decision in this Application, 2015 HRTO 1685, removing seven personal respondents from the Application. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider its Interim Decision. The applicant’s submissions focussed primarily on one of the individuals, J.H.
BACKGROUND
2The Tribunal’s Interim Decision found that it was appropriate to remove the individual respondents relying on the factors articulated in previous decisions Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 14, and Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 31.
THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
3In his Request for Reconsideration the applicant relies on the following reasons why the Tribunal should reconsider its Decision:
That the Decision is in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance.
4The respondents were requested to provide submissions in response to the Request. The individual respondent, Dr. Rosenfeld, took no position on the Request. The other respondents (the IESO respondents) opposed the Request.
THE LAW
5Under 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.
6The 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.
7The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration includes the following statements:
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 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
9I find that the applicant has not met the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration.
10Rule 26.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provides that a party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal. A decision will only be considered a final decision where the decision has the effect of finally determining the substance of the dispute or a central element of the dispute between the parties. See for example Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Ontario Teachers’ Federation, [1994 CanLII 10578 (ON CTGD)](https://www.minicounsel.ca/scj/1994/10578