HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Jeffrey Eamon
Applicant
-and-
Riley’s Valu-Mart
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl
Indexed as: Eamon v. Riley’s Valu-Mart
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Jeffrey Eamon, Applicant
Self-represented
Introduction
1On February 3, 2016, the Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, 2016 HRTO 162, 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 as having no reasonable prospect of success.
THE LAW
3Under section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (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.
8Form 20, Request for Reconsideration required the applicant to “check the reasons why you are making this Request for Reconsideration”. The applicant failed to check any sec. 26.5 reason. Moreover, none of the applicant’s submissions touch on the matters outlined in sec. 26.5.
9The applicant submits that the Tribunal came to its conclusion by ignoring some of his evidence. This is a bald assertion on the applicant’s part. Even if this were in fact the case, this is not a ground for Reconsideration.
10It is evident that the applicant does not agree with the outcome of the hearing. In essence, the applicant seeks to reargue matters heard at the hearing. A Request for Reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue the case.
11To re-open the hearing in these circumstances would undermine the Tribunal’s process and the public interest in the finality of its decisions.
order
12The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 11th day of April, 2016.
“signed by”
Keith Brennenstuhl
Vice-chair