3487-98-U Gilles A. Vallieres, Applicant v. Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 1287, Responding Party v. Regional Municipality of Niagara, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Laura Trachuk, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 1, 2000
1The applicant seeks reconsideration of the Board's decision of January 21, 2000.
2The Board will generally only agree to reconsider a decision in order to allow a party to introduce evidence or to make submissions which were not previously available to it through due diligence. In K-Mart Canada Limited (Peterborough), [1981] OLRB Rep. Feb. 185 at paragraph 4, the Board stated as follows:
- 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 a party's conduct, and the resulting prejudice to another party if the case is reopened. (See, generally, International Nickel Company of Canada, 63 CLLC 16,284; The Detroit River Construction Limited, 63 CLLC ¶16,260; National Steel Car Corporation Limited, [1966] OLRB Rep. Apr. 55; Canadian Union of General Employees, [1975] OLRB Rep. Apr. 320; York University, [1976] OLRB Rep. Apr. 187 affirmed, sub. nom. Jordan v. Ontario Labour Relations Board, York University Faculty Association, York University, 78 CLLC ¶14,132. (Ont. Div. Ct.).
3The request for reconsideration does not disclose any matter or propose to present any relevant evidence which were not previously available to the applicant and which could not therefore have been raised by him at the consultation on January 7, 2000. Indeed most of the submissions contained in the request for reconsideration were raised at the consultation. This request for reconsideration is therefore hereby dismissed.
“Laura Trachuk”
for the Board