Whitlow v. Ontario (Environment and Climate Change), 2016 HRTO 527

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Rodney Whitlow

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren

Date: April 21, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 527

Indexed as: Whitlow v. Ontario (Environment and Climate Change)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Rodney Whitlow, Applicant

Self-represented

INTRODUCTION

1On February 12, 2016, the Tribunal issued decision 2016 HRTO 203, which dismissed the applicant’s Contravention of Settlement Application. The applicant has filed a request for reconsideration of that decision.

BACKGROUND

2In the Contravention of Settlement Application, the applicant claimed that the respondent has breached a number terms of the Minutes of Settlement (“MOS”) that the applicant, respondent and the applicant’s union had entered into on July 14, 2014. An in-person hearing of that Application was held on December 4, 2015.

3Decision 2016 HRTO 203 determined a number of procedural issues, including a Request to Amend the Application that was brought after the hearing commenced and a Request for Disclosure that was filed after the evidence of both parties had been heard. The Decision then addressed the substance of the Application and the Tribunal found that the respondent did not breach any of the terms of the MOS.

4On March 11, 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 indicates that the reasons why he is making the Request are:

• 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; and

• other factors exist that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions

10In the details section of the Request, the applicant does not directly address how the decision is in conflict with established jurisprudence or what factors exist that may outweigh the public interest in the finality of the decision.

11The Applicant’s request contains a number of allegations about my potential bias, truthfulness and integrity. He takes issue with my findings on the procedural matters and makes further arguments to support the Request for Disclosure and Request to Amend. He also disagrees with some of my evidentiary findings.

12It is apparent that the reason the applicant has filed the Request for Reconsideration is that he disagrees with a number of the findings I made in this 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.