Ontario Labour Relations Board
2778-99-OH Peter McFawn v. Applicant v. Superintendent Joe Haffey, Danforth Bus Division, Toronto Transit Commission and The Toronto Transit Commission, Responding Parties.
2965-99-OH Peter McFawn v. Applicant v. Supt. Joseph Haffey, Toronto Transit Commission, Responding Parties.
BEFORE: Anthony Brown, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; December 11, 2000
This is a request for reconsideration of a decision of the Board dated October 23, 2000. A response opposing the request was filed by the responding party on December 4, 2000.
A request for reconsideration is required to be filed no later than 20 days (excluding weekends and Board holidays) following the dated of the decision. The application is dated November 24, 2000 and was received by the Board on November 27, 2000. The application is therefore untimely. The Board has decided to extend the time for filing the request to November 27, 2000.
It may be helpful for the Board to briefly review the principles applied upon a request for reconsideration. Those principles 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 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 to 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.
A careful review of the applicant’s submissions does not reveal circumstances which would lead the Board to reconsider its decision of October 23, 2000. The submissions reflect the applicant’s disagreement with the Board’s decision. However, the reasons for the disposition of this matter are set out in that decision and the applicant has raised nothing in his submissions to cause me to reconsider it. In essence, the applicant is attempting to reargue the matter.
Accordingly, the request for reconsideration is denied.
“Anthony Brown”
for the Board