Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
Between:
Michael Gassi Applicant
-and-
Essar Steel Algoma Respondent
Reconsideration Decision
Adjudicator: Bruce Best Date: September 19, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 1224 Indexed as: Gassi v. Essar Steel Algoma
Written Submissions
Michael Gassi, Applicant Self-represented
1On July 17, 2017, the Tribunal issued Decision 2017 HRTO 881, dismissing the Application. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider the Decision under s. 45.7 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended (the "Code"). The applicant has also filed a request for a Tribunal-ordered inquiry under Rule 20.
Background
2The Decision found that there was no reasonable prospect that the applicant would be able to establish that any of the allegations within the one-year period prior to filing the Application were related to a Code ground. The remaining allegations were, as such, untimely, and were dismissed for delay.
The Law
3Under 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. That section reads:
(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 Rules and Practice Directions 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:
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.
6While 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.
8The applicant relies on Rule 26.5(a) and (c), above. With respect to 26.5(a), he argues that the Decision was wrong in that the evidence necessary to establish his case is in the hands of the respondent, and as such the matter should have proceeded to a full hearing on the merits in order to address his allegations. He further argues that he has been subject to reprisal by the respondent after the hearing was held.
9Under Rule 26.5(c) he does not argue that the Decision was in conflict with established case law or procedure, but rather that the case involves a systemic culture of discrimination that needs to be addressed.
10The above issues, other than the reprisal issue, were the subject of submissions at the hearing, and dealt with in the Decision. In Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34, the Tribunal stated that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case. Once the parties have had the opportunity to present their evidence and arguments to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal has made a decision disposing of the issues, parties are entitled to treat the matter as closed, subject to limited exceptions set out above. A request for reconsideration is not an opportunity to restate or re-argue a position already advanced and considered.
11I also addressed, at para 63 of the Decision, the applicant's submissions that he had been subject to reprisal after the hearing. Such an allegation in and of itself is not a basis to grant a reconsideration, though as noted in the Decision this is without prejudice to his right to pursue that issue