Deva Dondapaty v. Toronto Community Housing, 2009 HRTO 1687

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Deva Dondapaty Applicant

-and-

Toronto Community Housing Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist Date: October 15, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 1687 Indexed as: Dondapaty v. Toronto Community Housing

1This is a Request for a Reconsideration filed by the applicant, in respect of a Decision dated August 6, 2009, 2009 HRTO 1172, dismissing the Application in this matter.

2The Request for Reconsideration was filed with the Tribunal on September 25, 2009. Rule 26.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provides that any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within thirty days from the date of the decision. This Request for Reconsideration was made beyond the thirty-day deadline with no explanation provided for the late filing. This raises the question of whether the Tribunal should even accept the Request. However, even assuming I accept the late filing, the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration is denied on its merits.

3Under section 45.7 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”) the Tribunal may, at the request of a party or on its own initiative, reconsider a final decision in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules. The most relevant Tribunal Rule is Rule 26 which reads, in part, as follows:

26.5 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; or

(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; or

(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.

4The Tribunal has also issued a Practice Direction to provide guidance on how the Tribunal exercises its reconsideration powers (Practice Direction on Reconsideration). The Practice Direction states, in part, that:

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.

5The applicant identifies on his Request for Reconsideration that he believed there were new facts that might be determinative that could not have reasonably been obtained earlier. He goes on to state that he does not believe that his counsel properly presented his case, that the Tribunal’s Decision does not address all the issues the applicant raised in his hearing, that his positive contributions to the community were not acknowledged in the Decision (or by the respondent). The applicant describes, at length, how the respondent’s actions have affected his mental and physical health and how his experiences with the respondent have had an impact on his life.

6Having reviewed my Decision, and the materials before me, I am not satisfied that the applicant has met the requirements for Reconsideration as set out in the Tribunal’s Rules and as described in the Practice Direction. As the Practice Direction notes Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity to repair deficiencies in a case and the Tribunal will only reconsider a decision when there are compelling or extraordinary circumstances.

7Most of the information presented by the applicant is information that was before me at the hearing. It does not constitute new facts or evidence. The little information that is new is peripheral to the issues I had to decide and certainly does not constitute facts or evidence that could be determinative of the matters I had to decide.

8The applicant’s complaints about his counsel, as described, are, in essence, an effort to simply repair perceived deficiencies in the case. It is true that my Decision did not describe all the evidence before me - no decision can - but I am satisfied that I appropriately weighed the evidence including the evidence the applicant refers to in his Request for Reconsideration. My final written Decision refers to the evidence that was necessary in order to render and communicate my Decision. The fact that I did not refer to all of the positive contributions that the applicant states he made to his community is not grounds for reconsideration. Neither is the fact that I did not deal with all issues raised by the applicant. I dealt with those necessary to reach my final determinations.

9It may be that the applicant’s experiences with the respondent have significantly affected him. However, the issue before me was whether the respondent’s actions were discriminatory and I concluded in my Decision that they were not. The matters described by the applicant in his Request do not establish the existence of any of the criteria necessary to grant a Request. Consequently the Request for Reconsideration is denied.