Weekes v. Mariposa Co-operative Homes Inc., 2011 HRTO 1767

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sharon Weekes

Applicant

-and-

Mariposa Co-operative Homes Inc. and the Regional Municipality of Halton

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: September 27, 2011

Indexed as: 2011 HRTO 1767

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Sharon Weekes, Applicant ) Self-represented

1On June 15, 2011, the Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, 2011 HRTO 1169, dismissing the Application against the Regional Municipality of Halton (“Halton”) and granting the applicant leave to withdraw, on consent, her Application against the remaining respondent Mariposa Cooperative Homes Inc. (“Mariposa”).

2On July 14, 2011, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration (Form 20) on the basis that she was not allowed to enter her pertinent documents, she did not receive “any of the relevant paperwork” and she was not aware that I was conducting a Summary Hearing on June 13, 2011.

3A 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.

DECISION AND ANALYSIS

4Under section 45.7 of the Code, the Tribunal may, at the request of a party or on its own initiative, reconsider its decisions in accordance with Tribunal’s Rules.

(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.

5The 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). Rule 26 states, in part:

26.1 Any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within 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.

6The 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.

7In this case, the Request for Reconsideration relies on Rule 26.5 (b) and (c). The applicant states that she did not receive the relevant paperwork from the Tribunal and, therefore, did not know the Tribunal was conducting a summary hearing. She also alleges that she was not allowed to enter her relevant documents.

8In fact, the Tribunal did not conduct a summary hearing on June 13, 2011. The respondent, Mariposa, requested that the hearing scheduled for that day be converted to a summary hearing, but I ruled in a Case Assessment Direction, dated June 10, 2011, that its request came too late and was, therefore denied.

9I did note in that Case Assessment Direction that the applicant appeared to have not met her disclosure obligations and that this may result in the applicant not being allowed to submit certain documents. However, this proved to be unnecessary as the hearing did not proceed to evidence on that day.

10As indicated in my Decision, the applicant, who was represented by counsel, was unable to articulate on what ground she was proceeding against Halton. She conceded that Halton had not violated her rights under the Code and I issued an oral ruling dismissing the Application against it. The applicant then entered into negotiations with Mariposa following which her counsel announced that she wished to withdraw her allegations against Mariposa.

11In the two-month period following her Request for Reconsideration, the applicant continued to submit documents to the Tribunal which appear to show that she continues to be engaged in ongoing disputes with Mariposa about the replacement of her flooring and concerning the fence between her and her neighbour. These documents are irrelevant to her stated concerns about what she was or was not allowed to submit at the hearing on June 13, 2011.

12In light of the sequence of events, it is difficult to see on what basis the Tribunal could exercise its discretion to reconsider its earlier Decision in this matter. Accordingly, the Request for Reconsideration must be denied.