Strutt v. RBC Royal Bank, 2011 HRTO 2279

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Robert Strutt

Applicant

-and-

RBC Royal Bank

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle

Date: December 20, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 2279

Indexed as: Strutt v. RBC Royal Bank

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Robert Strutt, Applicant ) ) Self-Represented

RBC Royal Bank, Respondent ) No submissions

1On October 4, 2011, the Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, 2011 HRTO 1794, dismissing the Application. The Application alleged discrimination in the area of goods, services and facilities, on the basis of disability. On November 8, 2011, the Tribunal received a Request from the applicant to reconsider its Decision.

background

2The Tribunal’s Decision dismissed the Application, finding as follows:

• The respondent is a federally regulated bank and therefore does not fall under provincial jurisdiction, and in particular, within the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

3In his Request for Reconsideration the applicant checked off the following reasons why the Tribunal should reconsider its Decision:

• There are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not have reasonably been obtained earlier.

• The decision is in conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general public importance.

4In his Request for Reconsideration, the applicant made written submissions which he commenced with the statement “I know this Application is not in jurisdiction of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal”. He then went on to submit that the Tribunal does not want to hear the Application because the bank is a large business and he does not have a lawyer. He states that the Canadian Human Rights Commission will not hear his Application and submits that the Application should be heard. He submits that while the bank appears to want to help new immigrants, it does not want to help clients like him, who have a fixed income or bad credit history, He also disputes that the respondent bank makes customer care a key priority, as they have not helped him with his financial difficulties and have not sat down with him to try to help. Finally, the applicant outlines in his Reconsideration Request several concerns with the respondent bank providing services to clients who are not Canadian residents and to new immigrants who can obtain a secured visa card without being a Canadian resident with an established credit record.

5With his Request for Reconsideration, the Applicant included a copy of an October 20, 2011 letter from a Senior Client Care Specialist at the respondent bank declining his application for a credit card based on his credit history. She also advised him that the New Immigrant Program for a secured Visa credit card is for “those who have not yet gained employment or established any credit, and for residents who have not yet established credit”.

DECISION

6Under 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.

7The 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:

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

8The 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.

9As is evident from the above, reconsideration is a discretionary remedy. That is, while the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to reopen and reconsider its own decisions, it is not obliged to do so. It may decide when reconsideration is advisable, both through the promulgation of rules setting out conditions for the exercise of its discretion, and through the application of its discretion on a case-by-case basis.

10The applicant has not submitted his Request for Reconsideration within the time provided by Rule 26.1, but in any event, I find that the applicant has not met the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration.

11As indicated above, the applicant relies on Rules 26.5(a) and (c).

12The applicant has not identified any new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier. In fact, the applicant has commenced his submissions stating that he knows that the Application is not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Without jurisdiction, the Tribunal cannot proceed to consider the matter, however dissatisfied the applicant is with the bank’s services to him.

13Further, while the applicant clearly disagrees with the conclusions of the Tribunal, I have reviewed his submissions and they do not refer to any established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure with which the Decision can be said to be in conflict.

14In sum, 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.