HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Roger Heron
Applicant
-and-
Toronto Community Housing Corporation
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Brian Cook
Indexed as: Heron v. Toronto Community Housing
1On November 22, 2010, the Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, 2010 HRTO 2322, dismissing the Application. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision.
background
2The hearing in this case was a summary hearing, pursuant to Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The issue at the hearing was whether the Application should be dismissed in whole or in part on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application or part of the Application will succeed. The Tribunal Decision held that there was no reasonable prospect that the Application would succeed and the Application was dismissed on that basis.
3Under 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.
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.
4The 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). Most relevant to this Decision is Rule 26 which 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.
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.
6In this case, the Request for Reconsideration repeats the allegations that were set out in the original Application. The Request references newspaper articles that have been published since the Decision regarding concerns raised by City councillors and others about vacancies in units owned by the respondent and about the respondent’s operations. This is not evidence that shows any mistake in the Decision or any other reason that would cause the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision. Nor does it provide any new evidence to suggest that there is any reasonable prospect that the Application or part of the Application could succeed.
7For these reasons, I find that the Request for Reconsideration must be denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 27th day of January, 2011.
“Signed by”
Brian Cook
Vice-chair