Kogan v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1642

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Gregory Kogan Applicant

-and-

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and David Wright Respondents

Reconsideration Decision

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: September 1, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1642 Indexed as: Kogan v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Written Submissions By: Gregory Kogan, Applicant (Self-represented)

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code’), on April 19, 2011, alleging discrimination in services on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin, creed and reprisal. The Application concerns a decision of the Tribunal to dismiss as abandoned a previous Application to the Tribunal.

2On August 9, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Decision in which it dismissed the Application because it fell outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction: 2011 HRTO 1486. Specifically, the Tribunal applied the doctrine of judicial immunity to the allegations in the Application against both the Tribunal and the individual respondent, the Associate Chair of the Tribunal.

3On August 14, 2011, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of that Decision and submissions in support of his Request. Pursuant to Rule 26.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, a party who has been served with a Request for Reconsideration is not required to respond to the Request unless directed to do so by the Tribunal. In the circumstances of this Request, the Tribunal did not deem it necessary to seek submissions from the respondents.

Request for Reconsideration

4Section 45.7 of the Code allows any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal to request that it reconsider its decision. The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure elaborate on the conditions and requirements of such a request. 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 exist that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

5In his Request the applicant checked the boxes indicating that all four factors set out above applied/formed the basis for his Request. However, the text that accompanied the Request fails to address any of these criteria as it relates to the Application at issue, but instead takes issue with the application of the doctrine of judicial immunity.

6It 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.

7The applicant has provided no basis on which I might exercise my discretion to overturn my initial Decision on this matter. Accordingly, the Request for Reconsideration is denied.