David Curtis v. Norman Douglas et al., 2009 HRTO 93

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

David Curtis

Applicant

-and-

Norman Douglas, Pamela Borghesan, Wesley Rowsom, Bruce Long, Terrance Carter, D. Ann Walters, Margot Hornseth, Karen Kinzett, Kevin Kinzett,

Lenn Curtis, Charlene LaPierre and Francine Harris

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: January 27, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 93

Indexed as: Curtis v. Douglas

1This Decision addresses a request for reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Case Resolution Conference Decision dismissing the Application on the basis that it was not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

2On December 5, 2008 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.

3The Tribunal’s Rules Governing Section 53(3) Applications provide that any party may request reconsideration of the Case Resolution Conference Decision in accordance with the Rules of Procedure for Applications under the Human Rights Code Part IV of the Code (the “Part IV Application Rules”). Rule 26.5 of the Part IV Application Rules 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.

4The applicant’s request does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 26.5 but merely reiterates his allegations of discrimination.

5The request for reconsideration is denied.