HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Christine Alexander
Applicant
-and-
Monterey Park Inc.
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Mark Hart
Indexed as: Alexander v. Monterey Park
1This Decision addresses a Request for reconsideration by the applicant in relation to the Tribunal’s Decision 2010 HRTO 1320, dated June 10, 2010 dismissing the Application due to the applicant’s failure to appear at the hearing in this matter.
2On July 12, 2010, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, stating that she had not received notice of the hearing in the mail and had been constantly calling her lawyer for weeks with no reply.
3Section 45.7 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended (the “Code”), provides as follows:
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.
4Under section 45.7 of the Code, the Tribunal may, at the request of a party or on its own initiative, reconsider a final decision in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules. The Tribunal has issued rules governing such requests 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, January 2008 amended June 2008).
5The 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.
6As is evident from the above, reconsideration is a discretionary remedy. That is, while the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to re-open 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.
7In Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34, the Tribunal stated that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case. Once the parties to an Application have had the opportunity to present their evidence and arguments to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal has made a decision disposing of the issues, parties are entitled to treat the matter as closed, subject to limited exceptions.
8The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure for Transitional Applications provide that any party may request reconsideration of a final decision in accordance with the Rules. Rule 25.5 of the 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.
9As a result, I need to determine whether the material filed by the applicant in support of her Request for reconsideration satisfies any of the criteria set out in Rule 25.5 upon which she relies.
10The applicant’s reconsideration request relies on sub-paras. (a) and (b) of Rule 25.5. With regard to sub-para. (a), the reconsideration request does not indicate what new facts or evidence the applicant is referring to or why it could not have been obtained earlier. As a result, there is no basis to support the request under this criterion.
11With regard to sub-para. (b), the applicant states that she did not receive notice of the hearing in the mail. In my Decision in this matter, I refer to the fact that a letter dated February 3, 2010 was sent to the applicant at the address she had provided to the Tribunal, providing notice that the hearing was scheduled for June 9, 2010. I further note in my Decision that this letter set out a deadline for the applicant to comply with certain pre-hearing obligations, and that she had written to the Tribunal to request an extension of this deadline, which was granted. It is incomprehensible to me how the applicant could be aware of the deadline set out in this letter, which she would not otherwise have known, and yet maintain that she had not received this very same letter which set the date for the hearing. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the applicant failed to receive notice of the hearing.
12With regard to the applicant’s stated efforts to contact her lawyer, the Tribunal has no record that the applicant is represented by counsel in this proceeding. Whether or not the applicant was trying to contact a lawyer has no bearing on her obligation to appear at the scheduled hearing.
13As a result, the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 7^th^ day of October, 2010.
”signed by”___________
Mark Hart
Vice-chair