Rita Keays v. Hamilton Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1559

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Rita Keays

Applicant

-and-

Hamilton Police Service

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta

Date: July 19, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1559

Indexed as: Keays v. Hamilton Police Service

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in services on the grounds of receipt of public assistance.

2The applicant was directed to provide written submissions by July 20, 2009 in an earlier Interim Decision, 2009 HRTO 969. On July 22, 2009, she sent an email requesting an extension of time to file the submissions. On the same date, the Tribunal responded by email and asked that the applicant specify how long an extension she was seeking. On August 19, 2009, having received no communication from the applicant, the Registrar sent a letter to the applicant giving her a deadline for filing the submissions of August 28, 2009.

3The applicant did not send in the submissions as directed in the letter from the Registrar; nor did she communicate with the Tribunal in any other way and as a result, on September 18, 2009, the Tribunal issued a Decision dismissing this Application as abandoned, 2009 HRTO 1500.

4The Tribunal received a Request for Reconsideration of that Decision on June 3, 2010. The applicant argues that reconsideration is warranted in this case on the ground that she was entitled to notice but, through no fault of her own, did not receive notice of the proceeding or hearing.

5This is the Tribunal’s Decision on the Request for Reconsideration.

Request for Reconsideration

6Section 45.7 of the Code provides the Tribunal with explicit authority to reconsider its decisions:

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.

7Further to its power to make rules, the Tribunal has issued rules governing Requests for Reconsideration as well as a Practice Direction to provide guidance to the community on the Tribunal’s exercise of its reconsideration powers (Practice Direction on Reconsideration).

8Most relevant to this decision is Rule 26 which reads, in part, as follows:

26.1 Any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within (thirty) 30 days of the date of the decision.

26.5 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 and orders.

9The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration begins with the following statements:

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.

10As is evident from the above, reconsideration is a discretionary remedy. That is, while the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to reopen and reconsider its own decisions, it is not obliged to do so. It may decide when reconsideration is advisable, both through the promulgation of rules setting out conditions for the exercise of its discretion, and through the application of its discretion on a case-by-case basis.

11The applicant has based her request on Rule 26.5 (b).

12She argues that her mail has consistently been tampered with and that she did not know that her Application had been dismissed as abandoned until she phoned the Tribunal to make inquiries some time in May 2010.

13In support of her contention that mail has been tampered with, she has submitted several pieces of mail, including what appears to be the envelope in which the abandonment Decision was mailed to her by the Tribunal, post marked September 21, 2009.

14Having considered the applicant’s argument and having reviewed the documents attached to her Request, I am unable to grant reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision of September 18, 2009.

15The Request was filed more than eight months after the Decision in question. Even if the time to file were extended, the Request would fail.

16The applicant was communicating by email with the Tribunal to seek an extension of a deadline in July 2009. It was her non-response to an email she does not dispute receiving in July 2009, that led the Tribunal to set a further and final deadline by mail. Even if she did not receive the August 19, 2009 letter setting that deadline, it is clear from her most recent filings that she did receive the envelope post marked September 21, 2009 declaring her Application dismissed as abandoned. Finally, if the contents of that envelope were missing, which is not specifically alleged, she has not explained why she waited until May 2010 to contact the Tribunal to make further inquiries.

17The Request is denied.