Bark v. Battel, 2010 HRTO 1249

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

M. Louise Bark Applicant

-and-

Luigi Battel Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton Date: June 2, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 1249 Indexed as: Bark v. Battel

INTRODUCTION

1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the "Code") alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in the social area of services. On April 23, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Decision, 2010 HRTO 886, dismissing the Application (the "Decision").

2The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration (the "Request") asking the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision. Pursuant to Rule 26.4 of the Tribunal's Rules, a respondent is not required to respond to a Request for Reconsideration unless directed to do so by the Tribunal. In the circumstances, the Tribunal did not deem it necessary to seek submissions from the respondents.

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

3Section 45.7 of the Code allows any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal to request it reconsider its decision. Pursuant 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 exit 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 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 applicant relies on the factor of Rule 26.5(a). She requests that her Application be reconsidered because "contrary to the belief of the Tribunal" she did not have a lawyer when she filed her Application and "this mistake was corrected after the case was dismissed". The applicant submits that at the time of writing her Application, she was emotionally distraught because she had been subjected to discrimination. She did not realize that she had to link the actions of the respondent with the Code and thought she would have a chance to orally present her case at mediation. The applicant repeats in her Request and provides further details of how the respondent is alleged to have discriminated against her.

6The applicant has not satisfied me that the factor of Rule 26.5(a) supports reconsideration of the Decision in this Application. There is no indication by either the applicant or the Tribunal that she had a lawyer when she filed her Application. When the Tribunal issued the Decision, it incorrectly identified a lawyer as representing the respondent on the covering page issuing the Decision, but this was later corrected. The Notice of Intent to Dismiss ("NOID") that was issued by the Tribunal and dated January 15, 2010 clearly stated that a review of her Application and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination fails to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondent. The NOID requested submissions from the applicant about how the respondent was alleged to have breached the Code and the applicant filed submissions, which led to the Decision being issued dismissing the Application.

7These circumstances do not qualify as "new facts or evidence" as required by Rule 26.5(a).

8Accordingly, I am not satisfied the applicant has established a basis for granting reconsideration of the Decision. The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.