Alabi v. Cancer Care Ontario, 2010 HRTO 478

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Damola Alabi

Applicant

-and-

Cancer Care Ontario

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: March 3, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 478

Indexed as: Alabi v. Cancer Care Ontario

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Damola Alabi, Applicant ) Ernest J. Guiste, Counsel

1On February 10, 2009, I issued an Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 302, which (a) provided written reasons for my oral decision granting the applicant’s Request to adjourn the hearing scheduled for January 18, 19 and 20, 2010, (b) provided directions to the applicant’s counsel with respect to rescheduling the hearing, and (c) granted the respondents’ Request to remove the individual respondent from the Application.

2On February 19, 2010, the applicant’s counsel filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Interim Decision.

3Section 45.7(1) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, provides that any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may request that the Tribunal reconsider its decision in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules. Rule 26.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within 30 days from the date of the decision. [Emphasis added]

4Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules states that 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.

5These four circumstances are also set out in section 2 of the Request for Reconsideration Form, which states: “Please check the reasons why you are making this Request for Reconsideration. Check all that apply.” The applicant’s counsel checked off all four boxes.

6As noted above, Rule 26.1 of the Tribunal's Rules only allows for reconsideration of final decisions of the Tribunal. The only aspect of my Interim Decision that is final is the removal of the individual respondent from the Application. Therefore, this is the only aspect of my Interim Decision that qualifies for reconsideration.

7The Request for Reconsideration alleges that the respondent’s counsel failed to act as the applicant’s agent at the hearing, that I adjudicated serious legal and factual issues against the unrepresented applicant and his counsel, and that my acts and omissions were contrary to fairness, in excess of jurisdiction, and a clear error of law, but it does not provide any specific reasons why, in accordance with the four circumstances set out in Rule 26.5, my decision to remove the individual respondent from the Application should be reconsidered.

8As noted in my Interim Decision, the decision to remove the individual respondent from the Application was based on the Tribunal’s Rules and case law, and the respondents’ uncontradicted written submissions in their Request for an Order During Proceedings. The Request for Reconsideration does not even attempt to explain why the applicant failed to file a Response to the respondents’ Request to remove the individual respondent from the Application.

9The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.