Christianson v. Attorney General (Ontario), 2009 HRTO 1250

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Michael Christianson

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Attorney General

Respondent

AND BETWEEN:

Michael Christianson

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Attorney General and Superior Court of Justice Southwest Region (Ontario)

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Alan Whyte

Date: August 12, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1250

Indexed as: Christianson v. Attorney General (Ontario)

1On July 15, 2009, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision 2009 HRTO 840 as provided for in section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”).

2In essence, the Decision in question found that the adjudication of legal disputes by the courts is not “services” for the purposes of section 1 of the Code.

3In his Request for Reconsideration, the applicant:

• provided an article from the Windsor Star newspaper published after the April 15, 2009 hearing in this matter related to the use of background checks in the selection of jurors in criminal cases and submitted that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to say negative things about the respondents as does the newspaper and that it is absurd to give the Tribunal less jurisdiction than a newspaper;
• provided a dictionary definition of the word “service”;
• provided a copy of Dawson v. Canada Post Corporation 2008 CHRT 41, which was referenced at the April 15, 2009 hearing;
• provided a copy of correspondence dated April 1, 2008 to the applicant from the Social Benefits Tribunal regarding the denial of the applicant's reconsideration request in relation to a decision of that Tribunal.

DECISION

4Sections 45.7 and 45.8 of the Code provide the Tribunal with authority to reconsider its decisions while confirming the finality of the Tribunal’s decisions:

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.

45.8 Subject to section 45.6 of this Act, section 21.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Tribunal rules, a decision of the Tribunal is final and not subject to appeal and shall not be altered or set aside in an application for judicial review or in any other proceeding unless the decision is patently unreasonable.

5Further to its power to make rules, the Tribunal has issued rules governing Requests for Reconsideration as well as a Practice Direction to provide guidance on the Tribunal’s exercise of its reconsideration powers (Practice Direction #4 reconsideration).

6Relevant to this Reconsideration Decision is the following Rule:

25.5. 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;

(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;

(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 and orders.

7Practice Direction #4 states, in part:

Decisions of the Tribunal are generally considered final and are not subject to appeal. However, parties may request that the Tribunal reconsider a final decision it has made. Reconsideration is a discretionary remedy; there is no right to have a decision reconsidered by the Tribunal. Generally, the Tribunal will only reconsider a decision where it finds that there are compelling and extraordinary circumstances for doing so and where these circumstances outweigh the public interest in finality of orders and decisions.

Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of its case.

8In this case, the applicant has not provided any submissions or documents which meet the requirements of Rule 25.5 quoted above. The points put forward by the applicant would not be determinative of the case and in any event, with the exception of the newspaper article which I find to be irrelevant, could have been adduced at the hearing.

9The applicant’s Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.