Drenic v. House of Friendship of Kitchener, 2009 HRTO 901

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ignacio Drenic

Applicant

-and-

House of Friendship of Kitchener, Andrew Suderman, Carl Sukkau and Lester Murphy

Respondents

Reconsideration Decision

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: June 25, 2009

Citation: 2008 HRTO 901

Indexed as: Drenic v. House of Friendship

1This Decision addresses a Request for reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, 2009 HRTO 833, dismissing the Application.

2On June 18, 2009, the applicant filed a Request for reconsideration under section 45.7 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended, (the “Code”).

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.

3Rule 25 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure for Transitional Applications under Section 53(3) and 53(5) of the Code provides any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within 30 days of the date of the decision. Rule 25.5 provides:

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.

4In his Request, the applicant submitted further evidence that he claims supports his contention that the respondents request that he leave the House of Friendship was contrary to the law. There is no evidence that this material could not reasonably have been obtained prior to the Case Resolution Conference and therefore it is not admissible at this stage of the process. Despite this conclusion, I have reviewed the material provided and it would not have changed the result had it been available at the hearing.

5Otherwise the applicant makes no submissions that bear on the factors outlined above. He actively participated in the Case Resolution Conference and presented his evidence. The evidence he tendered was admitted and considered. The applicant does not allege any other factor that outweighs the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions. The central submission of the applicant is that he disagrees with my findings of fact based on the evidence before me.

6The Request for reconsideration is denied.