Reconsideration not meant to re-argue previous decision: tribunal
An age discrimination claim from a job applicant who wasn't selected for an interview has been denied reconsideration at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. Adjudicator Karen Borovay refused to reconsider the dismissed application on Jan. 26, 2026. Ermanno Radeschi alleged Great Canadian Entertainment discriminated against him based on age when he applied for a position but never received an interview despite being qualified. The tribunal dismissed his application in November 2025 and Borovay refused to reconsider, noting the case was nearly identical to another failed claim Radeschi had filed against a different employer.
The tribunal found Radeschi provided no factual basis for his belief that age played a role in the hiring decision. Quoting from a previous tribunal decision involving the same applicant (Radeschi v. Techtronic Industries Canada Inc., 2025 HRTO 2631), Borovay noted: “In the applicant's case, there is no pre-existing relationship with the respondent as they had never met, there is no issue of job termination, and there is no allegation by the applicant that a job vacancy was filled by a younger person.”
The tribunal stated that Radeschi failed to provide the factual foundation required: “The applicant makes no allegations as to how the hiring process was conducted, nor the characteristics of any person who was ultimately hired.”
The contrast with successful age discrimination cases was stark. In Hall v. Zurn Industries Limited, cited by Radeschi, the applicant had a seven-year employment relationship, was terminated, and was passed over for another position in favor of a younger candidate. Additionally, the adjudicator in that case had found the applicant provided a factual basis necessary for making out a case of discrimination, which was lacking in Radeschi's case.
A distinguishable case
Borovay distinguished the case of Reiss v. CCH Canadian Limited, 2013 HRTO 764, which Radeschi included in his reconsideration request. In that case, “the respondent specifically referenced a preference for hiring 'more junior' candidates in the email declining the applicant for an interview."
Borovay found the Reiss case distinguishable on the facts and considered Radeschi's citation of additional case law to be “an attempt to re-state or re-argue a position already advanced and considered, which is not the purpose of a reconsideration.”
The tribunal referenced Holder v. Ontario (Solicitor General), 2025 HRTO 907, which states: “A reconsideration is not an opportunity for a dissatisfied party to re-open their hearing and provide additional cases for consideration and unsolicited post-hearing written submissions. When a decision is issued, it is not a draft for the parties to submit their views on factual findings, legal findings, and reasons.”
Second nearly identical claim
The tribunal noted this was Radeschi's second nearly identical claim against different employers, with the same applicant, same allegations, and same case law relied upon. The first reconsideration request was denied, and Borovay adopted the same reasoning and result in this case.
Borovay reinforced that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case or present additional case law after a decision has been issued. Regarding Radeschi's assertion that age discrimination is of great public importance, Borovay stated: “All matters of discrimination are of great public importance. Here, however, the applicant has not presented any factors that would warrant reconsideration and reopening of a closed matter.”
The tribunal found Radeschi had not established that the decision conflicts with established jurisprudence and declined to exercise its discretion to reconsider. The reconsideration request was refused.
See Radeschi v. Great Canadian Entertainment/Great Canadian Gaming Corporation, 2026 HRTO 147
