Larke v. Camisle Golf, 2009 HRTO 859

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

John Larke Applicant

-and-

Camisle Golf Ltd. Respondent

Reconsideration Decision

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee Date: June 16, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 859 Indexed as: Larke v. Camisle Golf

Written Submissions By:

John Larke, On His Own Behalf

1On May 6, 2009, the Tribunal issued a Decision, 2009 HRTO 588, which dismissed the applicant’s Application on the basis that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over the Application.

2On May 20, 2009, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision.

3Section 45.7(1) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, provides that any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may request that the Tribunal reconsider its decision in accordance with the Tribunal rules.

4Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that 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.

5These four circumstances are also set out in section 2 of the Request for Reconsideration Form, which states: “Please check the reasons why you are making this Request for Reconsideration. Check all that apply.”

6The applicant did not check any of the boxes in section 2 of the Form. He merely stated that he does not fully understand the reasoning behind the Tribunal’s Decision, and repeated the submissions that he made in his Application and in response to the Tribunal’s Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application.

7Reconsideration is not available simply because a party disagrees with the Tribunal’s Decision, and it is not an opportunity for a party to reargue the case. The applicant has not submitted that any of the four circumstances set out in Rule 26.5 are relevant to his Request for Reconsideration.

8The Request for Reconsideration is therefore dismissed.