HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Peikang Dai
Applicant
-and-
Presbytery of East Toronto, Knox Presbyterian Church, The Presbyterian Church in Canada, Jim Williams, John Vissers, Wayne Hancock, Kevin Livingston, Janis Ryder, Edward Hayley, William Middleton, and William Ingram
Respondents
RECONSIDERATION
Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty
Indexed as: Dai v. Presbytery of East Toronto
1Following a summary hearing, I issued a Decision dismissing these three Applications. I found that they had no reasonable prospect of success: see 2012 HRTO 650.
2On April 27, 2012, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration. A respondent is not required to respond to a Request for Reconsideration unless directed to do so by the Tribunal. In the circumstances of this Request, I did not deem it necessary to seek submissions from the respondents.
ANALYSIS
3Pursuant to section 45.7 of the Code, any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may request that it reconsider its decision. The Rules elaborate on the conditions and requirements of such a request.
4Rule 26.5 states that a 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.
5Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of its case. In this regard, it is helpful 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.
6In his Request, the applicant indicates that the Decision ought to be reconsidered because there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier, the Decision is in conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure and because other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of the Decision.
7Along with the Request, the applicant has provided detailed submissions and documents. These reiterate many of the arguments that were made or could have been made at the summary hearing.
8In particular, the applicant takes issue with the finding that his allegations of systemic discrimination have no reasonable prospect of success. He states that the Decision is in conflict with the following decisions: Phipps v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 877 and McKinnon v. Ontario (Ministry of Correctional Services), [1998] OHRBID 10 Although the applicant cites these decisions, he does not explain why he believes the Decision is in conflict with them.
9The facts in both of those cases are very different from those giving rise to this Application. They appear to be cases where, in very different factual circumstances, the Tribunal reached a different conclusion. The cases cited by the applicant present no basis to conclude that the Decision is in conflict with the Tribunal’s case law.
10The applicant also asks the Tribunal to reconsider an earlier decision it rendered dismissing an earlier complaint filed by the Applicant: 2010 HRTO 883. I note that this latter decision was already the subject of a Request for Reconsideration, which was denied: 2010 HRTO 1195.
11It is apparent that the applicant disagrees with my earlier Decision. However, he has presented no basis to reconsider it.
12The Request for Reconsideration is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 18th day of May, 2012.
”signed by”
Michelle Flaherty
Vice Chair