Rots v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2011 HRTO 741

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Maria Rots

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services and Brian Grobben

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: April 18, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 741

Indexed as: Rots v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)

1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on December 3, 2010 alleging discrimination because of receipt of public assistance with respect to housing and services, goods and facilities, and reprisal.

2The Application was dismissed by way of Decision 2011 HRTO 422, pursuant to section 34(11) of the Code, because the Application was filed outside of the Code one year timeline and also because parts of the Application do not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

3The applicant filed a Request for reconsideration. The applicant asserts that there are new facts or evidence which were not available before and that other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of the Tribunal’s decision. The applicant argues that the original Decision was incorrect and did not understand that the she was wrongly convicted of a crime.

RELEVANT LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

4Section 45.7 of the Code provides the Tribunal with authority to reconsider its decisions. Further to its power to make rules, the Tribunal has issued Rules governing Requests for Reconsideration. Rule 26.5 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;

(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;

(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 and orders.

DECISION

5The 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.

6On my review of the Reconsideration Request, I am satisfied that there is no basis to reconsider the Decision. The applicant appears to suggest that the Tribunal did not understand her concerns. The applicant is attempting to re-argue her case by repeating the same arguments that were made earlier.

7Tribunal jurisprudence recognizes the public importance in upholding the finality of decisions subject to certain circumstances as outlined in the Practice Direction. I cannot conclude that, as asserted by the applicant, it is in the public interest to continue to deal with the Application. 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. There are no new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and the applicant’s request does not raise issues of general importance nor outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions. The applicant has not cited any point where the Decision conflicts with established case law or Tribunal procedure.

8Accordingly, the reconsideration Request is dismissed.