Cote v. Bruce Edmeades, 2011 HRTO 727

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Dennis Cote

Applicant

-and-

Bruce Edmeades Co. (now Martin-Brower of Canada Co.), Jaye Jackson,

Janet Lehman, Sarah Brestovacki and Steve Little

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle

Date: April 14, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 727

Indexed as: Cote v. Bruce Edmeades

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Dennis Cote, Applicant ) Self-represented

1The Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, 2010 HRTO 1803, dismissing the Application. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision.

Background

2The Tribunal’s Decision found that a court action raises the same facts and issues as those raised in the Application before the Tribunal, and the applicant seeks a remedy from the court for those same actions.

The Request for Reconsideration

3In his Request for Reconsideration, the applicant states the subject matter of his court action is really the non-payment of an insurance policy for his deceased wife and that it is not the same as the matter he seeks to put before the Tribunal. He has also provided copies of documents which pre-date the commencement of the hearing of this Application. In his Request, he indicates that he seeks Reconsideration because:

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

Decision

4Under 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.

5The Tribunal has issued Rules governing such requests in relation to Applications made pursuant to sections 53(3) and 53(5) 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 25 which states:

25.1 Any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within (thirty) 30 days of the date of the decision

25.5. 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.

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

9In making his Request, the applicant seeks to rely upon Rule 25.5(c). In support of his Request, however, he essentially repeats arguments made orally before the Tribunal. A Request for reconsideration is not an opportunity to restate or re-argue a position already advanced and considered.

10While the applicant has not indicated that he relies on Rule 25.5(a), I note that he has included documentation with his Request. The applicant has not however, identified any new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier.

11It is important to note that the issues raised in this Request were the subject of submissions before the Tribunal, and dealt with in its Decision. In Sigrist and Carson, above, the Tribunal stated that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case. Once the parties have had the opportunity to present their evidence and arguments to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal has made a decision disposing of the issues, parties are entitled to treat the matter as closed, subject to limited exceptions. I find that the submissions in this Request amount to additional argument on issues already fully canvassed before the Tribunal.

12The Tribunal also stated in Sigrist and Carson that a “conflict with established jurisprudence or procedure” requires (at a minimum) that there be a settled understanding about the legal rules that apply, and a clear and surprising departure from those legal rules. While the applicant clearly disagrees with the conclusions of the Tribunal, I am satisfied that his submissions on this Request do not establish that the Tribunal’s Decision conflicts with established jurisprudence.

13In sum, I find that the applicant has not established the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 25 that would lead to reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision. The Request is denied.