HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Louise Dixon
Applicant
-and-
930187 Ontario Ltd.
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Judith Keene
Indexed as: Dixon v. 930187 Ontario
INTRODUCTION
1The Tribunal issued a Decision, 2010 HRTO 256, with respect to this Application on February 4, 2010. On March 31, 2010, the respondent filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision. The Request was apparently delivered to the applicant on March 30, 2010.
2Section 45.7(1) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the "Code"), provides that “[a]ny party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may request that the Tribunal reconsider its decision in accordance with the Tribunal rules”. The Rules elaborate on the conditions and requirements of such a request. Rule 26.1 states that “[a]ny party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within (thirty) 30 days from the date of the decision.”
3Pursuant to Rule 26.5, 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.
4It is also useful to consider the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration, which 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.
5The Request has been made beyond the time limit specified in Rule 26.1 and the material before me does not establish any reason to waive the time limit. In any event, even assuming the Tribunal should consider the Request, I find no basis to grant reconsideration of the Decision.
6Of the Rule 26.5 criteria listed on the Request form, the respondent checked off “Other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions”.
7Some of the submissions filed with the Request attempt to adduce evidence that was not adduced at the hearing, or reiterate assertions made at the hearing. Paragraph 1 is an assertion that the respondent’s building is not “zoned or licensed”. The nature of the zoning or licensing that might be required is not identified in the Request, nor is there any evidence that such a requirement, if it exists, had anything to do with those actions of the respondent’s that were at issue at the hearing. The Decision deals with the argument in this regard made by the respondent at the hearing at paragraphs 24, 26, 27, 42 and 72.
8Paragraph 2 of the Request makes unsupported allegations that were not made at the hearing concerning the width of the applicant’s wheelchair and the width of the bathroom doors, presumably in (unidentified) apartments. Even if these allegations were accompanied by demonstrative evidence, there is no indication this evidence could not reasonably have been obtained earlier.
9Paragraphs 3, 4 5 and 7 of the Request essentially submit that I ignored evidence of undue hardship. The respondent is referred to paragraphs 24, 26, 27 and 42 of the Decision, which reflect the assertions of hardship, unsupported by demonstrative evidence, that were made at the hearing. Insofar as the list of expenses and the estimates dated March 15, 2010 and appended to the Request are tendered as evidence that the requested remedy would create undue hardship, again, there is no indication that this evidence could not reasonably have been obtained earlier.
10Finally, paragraph 6 of the Request takes issue with the amount awarded for compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect, in part because the applicant’s evidence did not include medical evidence. There is no requirement for medical evidence to authorize an order of this nature and the absence of medical evidence does not provide a basis for reconsideration under any of the criteria in Rule 26.5.
11The Tribunal’s reconsideration process is not intended to be an appeal of a Tribunal decision. The Request does not establish that any of the factors noted in Rule 26.5 apply in this case. Reconsideration is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 14th day of May, 2010.
”signed by”__________________
Judith Keene
Vice-chair