Jerry Allen v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2017 HRTO 1340

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jerry Allen Applicant

-and-

Workplace Safety and Insurance Board Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: October 11, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 1340

Indexed as: Allen v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Jerry Allen, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1On July 4, 2017, the Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, 2017 HRTO 787, dismissing the Application. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision.

BACKGROUND

2The Tribunal’s Decision found that the Application must be dismissed because it was plain and obvious that the Application was outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to decide.

THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

3In his Request for Reconsideration (“the Request”) the applicant relies on the following reasons why the Tribunal should reconsider its Decision:

a. That there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier

4The respondents were 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 (a).

11In support of his Request, the applicant asks that the Tribunal amend section 34 of the Code by which I understand the applicant proposes that his Application be reframed as alleging a violation of section 2. It is not clear that this would be appropriate or would assist the applicant.

12The remainder of the applicant submissions’ merely repeat arguments made orally before the Tribunal.

13In 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. I find that the submissions in this Request amount to repetitive argument on issues already fully canvassed before the Tribunal.

14In sum, 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.