John Villella v. Corporation of the City of Brampton and Susan Bauman, 2011 HRTO 515

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

John Villella

Applicant

-and-

Corporation of the City of Brampton and Susan Bauman

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Faisal Bhabha

Date: March 14, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 515

Indexed as: Villella v. Brampton (City)

BACKGROUND

1The applicant filed an Application on August 28, 2009 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”). The Application alleges discrimination in the areas of goods, services and facilities, employment and contracts on the basis of record of offences.

2A Summary Hearing in this matter was scheduled for January 20, 2011. On January 19, 2011, the Tribunal granted an eleventh-hour adjournment request made by the respondent City on the basis of representations citing a medical emergency involving a member of counsel’s family. I found this to be an exceptional situation, and determined it appropriate to grant the adjournment.

3In granting the adjournment, I directed the Registrar to re-schedule a hearing date immediately, and I ordered that the date would be peremptory on the respondents in respect of representation, meaning that no further adjournment would be granted due to the unavailability of counsel. It appears that the hearing has now been set for March 29, 2011.

4On February 19, 2011, the applicant filed a Form 21, though it appears he intended to file a Form 20 (Request for Reconsideration). In submissions in support of his Request for Reconsideration, the applicant states that he has been denied procedural fairness on the basis of the Tribunal’s failure to remedy alleged breaches of the Rules by the respondents, and in not being afforded an opportunity to respond to the respondents’ adjournment request of January 19, 2011. He also asserts that the respondents intentionally misled the Tribunal in their representations in support of the adjournment request.

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

5Section 45.7 of the Code allows any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal to request it reconsider its decision. The 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.

6It 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.

Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of its case.

7A decision to adjourn is an exercise of the Tribunal’s discretionary power. It is not determinative of the merits of the Application and, importantly, is not a final Decision. Therefore, an adjournment decision is not open to Reconsideration.

8Regarding the alleged Rules violations, the applicant disputes findings and conclusions contained in the Interim Decision. The application of the Tribunal’s Rules regarding disclosure involves the exercise of discretionary power. It is therefore not a final Decision and is not open to Reconsideration.