Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Paul Gurrieri
Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Attorney General and Julie Legassicke
Respondents
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Ian R. Mackenzie
Indexed as: Gurrieri v. Ontario (Attorney General)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY
Paul Gurrieri, Applicant ) Self-represented
[1] On August 25, 2011, the Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, [2011 HRTO 1597](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2011/1597), dismissing the Application. On November 3, 2011, the applicant asked the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision in accordance with section 45.7 of the Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”).
background
[2] The Tribunal’s Decision held that the actions and comments of an Assessment Officer in the course of a judicial proceeding were not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal because adjudicative functions are not “services” within the meaning of the Code. The Application was therefore dismissed.
THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
[3] In his Request for Reconsideration, the applicant indicated that the decision was in conflict with established case law and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance. He also stated:
My Application was 2 fold. You did not address the more important issue of incivility, insolence and not reporting the facts (spinning words – see transcripts).
Analysis and Decision
[4] The Rules with respect to Reconsiderations provide for reconsideration of a final decision within thirty (30) days of the date of the decision (Rule 26.1). The applicant’s request is late. In his Request he states that the reason for not filing within the time limits was because of his disability and what appears to have been a short-term illness.
[5] The reason for the delay in filing the Request for Reconsideration is not compelling. There is not much detail in the reason provided, but what appears to be a short-term illness cannot justify the delay. There is no other information in the applicant’s submissions that could lead me to conclude that the applicant has a disability that prevented him from filing his Request for Reconsideration in a timely manner. On this basis alone, the Tribunal can refuse a Request for Reconsideration: der von Felix v. International Financial Data Services (Canada), [2010 HRTO 362](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2010/362).
[6] However, even if the Request was timely, I would dismiss the Request for the following reasons.
[7] The Rules set out the grounds for reconsideration (Rule 26.5):
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.
8As noted in the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration, reconsideration is not an appeal.
[9] I find that the applicant has not met the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration.
10In support of his Request, the applicant essentially repeats the allegations raised in his Application. A request for reconsideration is not an opportunity to restate or re-argue a position already advanced and considered.
11The applicant alleges that the Decision was in conflict with established jurisprudence. He provided no jurisprudence to justify this claim. The Tribunal’s jurisprudence on judicial officers is well-established.
12The applicant has not relied on any other reason for his Request for Reconsideration.
[13] In conclusion, I find that the applicant has not established the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26 that would lead to reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision. The Request is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 1st day of December, 2011.
“signed by”
Ian R. Mackenzie
Vice-chair```