HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Dilshad Walji by her litigation guardian Gulam Walji
Applicant
-and-
York Condominium Corporation No. 455 and Al-Amin Khan Mohamed
Respondents
B E T W E E N:
Gulam Walji
Applicant
-and-
York Condominium Corporation No. 455 and Al-Amin Khan Mohamed
Respondents
reconsideration decision
Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl
Indexed as: Walji v. York Condominium
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Dilshad Walji by her litigation )
guardian Gulam Walji and Gulam Walji, )Gulam Walji, Representative
Applicants )
1The applicants filed a Request for Reconsideration (the “Request”) on August 18, 2011, which requested reconsideration of my Decision, 2011 HRTO 1365, issued July 19, 2011, that dismissed their Applications as having no reasonable prospect of success following a summary hearing.
2A respondent is not required to respond to a Request for Reconsideration 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.
3Under section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, ch. H.19, as amended (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. Rule 26.5 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.
3In their Request the applicants rely on the criteria identified in Rule 26.5(a), (c) and (d).
4When considering a request for reconsideration, it is 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.
Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of its case.
4It is my view that the applicants’ Request does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 26.5. The applicants repeatedly assert in their submissions that the Decision not to accept the Applications is wrong. The applicants did not present any new facts or evidence nor have they raised any established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure which is in conflict with my Decision. Reconsideration is not available simply because a party disagrees with the Tribunal’s decision, and it is not an opportunity for a party to reargue the case.
5The applicants also complain, without providing any specific information, about my abilities as an adjudicator and allege that I am “unethical, unprofessional, unoriginal…. and deeply rooted in prejudice, hatred and ignorance”. There is no basis for this assertion. It is clear that the applicants’ allegations merely repeat their view that their matters before the Tribunal have been improperly decided. This is not the basis for a reconsideration of a final decision.
6Finally, the applicants’ reconsideration Request does not raise any other factors that, in my opinion, outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions
6The Request is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 26th day of September, 2011.
”signed by”__________
Keith Brennenstuhl
Vice-chair