Amine Chourbagi v. Forest City Housing Co-operative, 2011 HRTO 412

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Amine Chourbagi Applicant

-and-

Forest City Housing Co-operative, Laura Yeomans, Jeff Connor, Carol Lamonte, and Krysta Hill Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Sheehan Date: February 28, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 412 Indexed as: Chourbagi v. Forest City Housing Co-operative

1The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal Decision 2011 HRTO 67 pursuant to section 45.7 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S. O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”).

2Rule 25.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure for Transitional Applications provides that 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.

3The Practice Direction on Reconsideration issued by the Tribunal suggests the following regarding the Tribunal’s power to grant reconsideration:

• Decisions of the Tribunal are generally considered final and are not subject to appeal.
• Reconsideration is a discretionary remedy and 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.

4The applicant based her reconsideration Request on Rule 25.5(c).

5For the Tribunal to grant reconsideration the specific language of Rule 25.5(c) would have to be satisfied. Specifically, it would have to be established that the Tribunal’s decision is in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure.

6One cited reason for the Request for Reconsideration was that the Case Resolution Conference lasted only one day. It was suggested an additional hearing day was required. Additionally, it was asserted, wrongly, that the case was to have been decided by three adjudicators. Clearly neither of the cited reasons suggests, in any way whatsoever, that the Tribunal’s decision is in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure.

7For the record, it is noted that the applicant was given a full opportunity to present evidence in support of her application. She took advantage of the opportunity by leading evidence through her own testimony and two other witnesses and by entering a number of documents into evidence. She, additionally, had a full opportunity to submit written submissions in support of her position.

8Finally, there is no basis to suggest that the Reconsideration of this matter constitutes a matter of general or public importance.

9Accordingly, the Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.