Carlos v. 1174364 Ontario, 2009 HRTO 589

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Elizabeth Carlos

Applicant

-and-

1174364 Ontario Ltd. and Manuel Ferreira

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: May 7, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 589

Indexed as: Carlos v. 1174364 Ontario

INTRODUCTION

1On March 18, 2009, the Tribunal issued a Decision (2009 HRTO 311) dismissing the Application.

2On April 14, 2009, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision, as provided for in section 45.7 of the Code. The basis of the request is that there was procedural unfairness in the Tribunal’s hearing process. The applicant also challenges the Tribunal’s decision on privilege.

RELEVANT LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

3Sections 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.

4Further 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).

5Relevant 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.

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.

DECISION

7The applicant asserts that the deadline for the respondents to file their statement of additional facts was extended unfairly. I note that the applicant did not raise this at the hearing nor identify any prejudice as a result. I reject the submission that there was any procedural unfairness in the conduct of the hearing or the processes prior to the hearing.

8The remainder of the Request for Reconsideration is a challenge to my finding that the Notices of Termination initiating the Landlord and Tenant Board process were privileged and could not be relied upon to found an allegation of discrimination. The applicant did not identify any case law to establish a “conflict with established jurisprudence.” The applicant did not identify how the reconsideration request involved a matter of general or public importance.

9The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.