Christianson v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2011 HRTO 1992

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Michael Christianson

Applicant

-and-

Ministry of Community and Social Services – Ontario Disability Support Program and Grace Holsapple

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Alan G. Smith

Date: November 3, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1992

Indexed as: Christianson v. Ontario (Community and Social Services)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY:

Michael Christianson, Applicant ) Self Represented

INTRODUCTION

1The applicant filed this Application on April 11, 2011, under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in the provision of goods, services or facilities on the grounds of disability.

2On August 11, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Decision, 2011 HRTO 1496, dismissing the Application because it failed to raise matters over which the Tribunal has jurisdiction (the power to decide). The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of that Decision on September 8, 2011.

3Contrary to Tribunal Rule 1.12 the applicant has failed to deliver a copy of the Request for Reconsideration to the respondents. Notwithstanding that, this Decision will address the Request for Reconsideration.

4In his Request for Reconsideration, the applicant requested the Tribunal reconsider its decision to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on, among other things, the following grounds:

Due to no fault of the applicant in the narrative of the application the adjudicator Alan G. Smith, member, omits the obvious in paragraph [9] of his decision, where adjudicator Smith states, the applicant “fails to explain how the treatment he received is distinguishable from that received by other persons.” The obvious “treatment…received is distinguishable from that received by other persons” is that the applicant on ODSP pension without a criminal record was treated worse than criminals in that the criminals received more pension money in prison automatically, without having to ask for any internal review.

5The applicant also submits that a reconsideration should be granted because, “The applicant won’t be pursuing the matter to Divisional Court for Judicial Review due to lack of funds as well as lack of representation…”.

6In essence, the applicant’s submissions with respect to reconsideration fail to address the jurisdictional issue and instead re-argue the substance of the Application with respect to the respondent’s alleged violation of the Code.

ANALYSIS

7Section 45.7 of the Code allows any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal to request it reconsider its decision. The Tribunal Rules 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.

8It 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.

9Since there are no new facts being alleged or issues with regard to notice being raised the applicant appears to base his argument for reconsideration on Rule 25.6(c) i.e., that the reasons for the decision to dismiss the Application are in conflict with established jurisprudence and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance.

10In such decisions as Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34, LaFortune v. Washington Mills Electro Minerals, 2009 HRTO 1706, Burns v. Employer’s Choice Staffing of Canada, 2009 HRTO 1779, and Winterburn v. General Motors of Canada, 2011 HRTO 1053, the Tribunal stated that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case. Once the parties to an Application have had the opportunity to present their evidence and arguments to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal has made a decision disposing of the issues, parties are entitled to treat the matter as closed, subject to very limited exceptions.

11Finally, the fact that the applicant is not able to pursue judicial review does not constitute a valid factor that outweighs the public interest in the finality of the Tribunal’s decision pursuant to Rule 26.5(d)

12The applicant has failed to meet the criteria set out in Rule 26.5. The Request for Reconsideration fails to address the jurisdictional issue which was the reason for the dismissal of the Application. At its core, the Request for Reconsideration is therefore an attempt by the applicant to re-argue his case and appeal the Tribunal’s decision.

ORDER

13The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.