Li Dong Wang v. TS Tech Canada Inc., 2016 HRTO 516

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Li Dong Wang

Applicant

-and-

TS Tech Canada Inc.

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: April 20, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 516

Indexed as: Wang v. TS Tech Canada Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Li Dong Wang, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1On March 30, 2016, the Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, 2016 HRTO 401, dismissing the Application. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision.

BACKGROUND

2The Tribunal’s Decision dismissed the Application on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to establish a violation of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990 c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

3In his Request for Reconsideration, the applicant provides the following reasons why the Tribunal should reconsider its Decision:

a. The decision is in conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration is a matter of general or public importance.

4The respondent was not called upon to respond to 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.

10As indicated above, the applicant relies on Rule 26.5(c) but provides no submissions related to that basis for reconsideration. Rather the applicant merely repeated his very limited evidence given at the hearing and his request for compensation.

11A request for reconsideration is not an opportunity to restate or re-argue a position already advanced and considered.

12I am not convinced that any findings made in the Decision are in conflict with established jurisprudence and the applicant made no submission that it was.

13In conclusion, I find that the applicant has not established the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26 that would lead to reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision. The Request is denied.