HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Hiroshi Noda

Applicant

-and-

Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle

Date: March 2, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 442

Indexed as: Noda v. Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Hiroshi Noda, Applicant ) Self-represented

[1] On February 17, 2011, the Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, 2011 HRTO 331, dismissing the Application. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision.

background

[2] The Tribunal’s Decision dismissed the Application as abandoned on the basis that the applicant failed to attend the hearing scheduled for February 15, 2011.

THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

[3] In his Request for Reconsideration, dated February 18, 2011, the applicant indicates that his Request is made under Rule 26.5(a), (c) and (d). In support of his Request he states that an individual who had been employed at the respondent “has been fired from his position…for discrimination”.

DECISION

[4] Under 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.

[5] The 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.

6The 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.

7As 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.

[8] I find that the applicant has not met the burden of establishing any of the criteria justifying reconsideration.

[9] As indicated above, the applicant relies on Rule 26.5(a), (c) and (d). He alleges that someone at the respondent has had his employment terminated for discrimination.

[10] The Decision dismissing this matter was made on the basis that the applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing date and there is nothing in the Request for Reconsideration indicating new facts or evidence addressing the applicant’s failure to attend. I do not find therefore that the applicant has identified any new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the matter and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier.

[11] The applicant has indicated in his Request for Reconsideration that the Decision is in conflict with well established case law or Tribunal procedure and that there are other factors that exist which outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions. He has not made any submissions as to either of these issues, and based on the materials filed, I cannot conclude that these form a basis for reconsideration of the Decision.

[12] Finally, while the applicant has not addressed this in his Request for Reconsideration, I note that paragraph 5 of the Decision in this matter indicates that there was some discussion between the parties regarding the respondent’s request for an adjournment of the hearing date scheduled for February 15, 2011. No request for an adjournment of that date was ever received by the Tribunal, however, and indeed, there was never any communication from the Tribunal to the parties indicating that the hearing date was adjourned.

[13] In summary, 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.