Kaikhushroo Firozi v. Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation, 2009 HRTO 333

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Kaikhushroo Firozi

Applicant

-and-

Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation, Bob Stenton, Donnel Asper and Lansha Leung

Respondents

reconsideration DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim Date: March 20, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 333 Indexed as: Firozi v. Ontario (Lottery and Gaming Corporation)

INTRODUCTION

1On February 12, 2009, the Tribunal issued a Decision, 2009 HRTO 155, finding that the Application is not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

2On March 9, 2009, the applicant made a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision, as provided for in section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H-19, as amended (the “Code”). The basis for the request was that there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier; and 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.

DECISION

3The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.

RELEVANT LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

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.

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).

6Practice 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.

7Relevant to this Decision are the following Rules:

25.1 Any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within 30 days of the date of the decision.

25.3. A request for reconsideration must include:

(a) reasons for the request, including the basis on which the Tribunal is asked to grant the request for reconsideration;

(b) submissions in support of the request; and

(c) the remedy or relief sought.

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.

ANALYSIS

8The applicant did not present any new facts or evidence, nor identify one case to establish a “conflict with established jurisprudence.” The applicant did not identify how the reconsideration request involved a matter of general or public importance. The applicant essentially re-argued the jurisdiction issue.

9For these reasons the Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.