1054-99-U Myrna Beausoleil, Applicant v. Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association, Responding Party v. Toronto Catholic District School Board, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Anthony Brown, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; January 24, 2000
This is an application for reconsideration of the Board’s decision dated September 2, 1999. dismissing the application made by the applicant under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (“the Act”), in which the applicant alleged that the responding party had violated section 74. The application was dismissed on the basis that it did not disclose a prima facie case.
Pursuant to section 114(1) of the Act, the Board has the discretion to reconsider any decision it has made. That section states:
(1) The Board has exclusive jurisdiction to exercise the powers conferred upon it by or under this Act and to determine all questions of fact or law that arise in any matter before it, and the action or decision of the Board thereon is final and conclusive for all purposes, but nevertheless the Board may at any time, if it considers it advisable to do so, reconsider any decision, order, direction, declaration or ruling made by it and vary or revoke any such decision, order, direction, declaration or ruling.
The principles which the Board applies in an application for reconsideration are set out in John Entwistle Construction Limited, [1979] OLRB Rep. Nov. 1096, as follows:
The Board exercises its jurisdiction under section 95(1) [now 114(1)] of the Act to reconsider and vary or revoke any decision with care and caution in order not to undermine the finality of its decisions and, as stated by the Board in Canadian Union of General Employees, [1975] OLRB Rep. April 320:
Generally, the Board will not reconsider a decision unless a party proposes to adduce new evidence which could not previously have been obtained by reasonable diligence and the new evidence is such that, if adduced, it would be practically conclusive or a party wishes to make representations or objections not already considered by the Board that he had no opportunity to raise previously.
These are general standards which the Board has developed as guidelines and which are useful not just to guide the Board in making its decisions, but also to allow parties who may be affected by the Board’s decisions some degree of certainty of what to expect from the Board. While it is important for the purpose of certainty that these standards generally be adhered to, it is equally important that they not be followed inflexibly.
- In K-Mart Canada Limited (Peterborough), [1981] OLRB Rep. Feb. 185, the Board stated at paragraph 4:
To avoid abuse of the reconsideration provision and bring some finality to its adjudicated decisions the Board has adopted principles not unlike those of the courts. The Board will not normally accede to a request to reconsider unless the party requesting reconsideration intends to adduce new evidence which was not previously available to them by the exercise of due diligence, and then only where such additional evidence, if proved, would be likely to make a substantial difference to the outcome of the case. Reconsideration is therefore generally restricted to allowing a party to adduce evidence or make representations which it did not have a previous opportunity to raise. The Board may also consider such factors as the motives for the request for reconsideration in light of the party’s conduct, and the resulting prejudice to another party if the case is reopened.
The Board may also reconsider a decision if an obvious error has been made or if the request raises significant and important policy issues which have not been given adequate attention or consideration. See, for example, Toronto Board of Education (Plant Operations), [1998] OLRB Rep. Jan./Feb. 104.
In the present case, the Board (differently constituted) found that there were no facts alleged in the application which would make out a case for the orders or remedies requested.
In her application for reconsideration, the applicant essentially reiterates the submissions that she made in her complaint. No new information of a material nature is supplied. There are no new facts pleaded which show the union acted in a manner that was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith.
The application does not establish sufficient grounds for the Board to reconsider its decision. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
“Anthony Brown”
for the Board