Armorer v. Family Responsibility Office, 2012 HRTO 1031

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Peter Armorer

Applicant

-and-

Family Responsibility Office and Freida Clarke

Respondents

reconsideration decision

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: May 22, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1031

Indexed as: Armorer v. Family Responsibility Office

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Peter Armorer, Applicant ) Self-represented

1The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration (the “Request”) on May 13, 2012, which requested reconsideration of my Decision, 2012 HRTO 731 issued April 13, 2012, that dismissed his Application..

2Under section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended the Tribunal may, at the request of a party or on its own initiative, reconsider a final decision in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. Rule 26.5 provides:

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.

3It 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.

4The applicant cites three reasons for making his Request.

5First, he asserts that there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier. However, he failed to identify any new facts or evidence. Rather he refers to portions of the material that he had filed prior to his hearing, which he addressed at the hearing and which I considered in reaching my Decision.

6Secondly, he asserts that my Decision is in conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance portions. However, he fails to cite any caselaw or point to any Tribunal procedure that conflict with my Decision; nor, does he explain why or how the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public interest.

7Thirdly, he asserts that other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions. However, he fails to identify what, if any, are those factors.

8It is my view that the applicant’s Request does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 26.5. It is clear that the applicant disagrees with my Decision. However, reconsideration is not available simply because a party disagrees with the Tribunal’s decision, and it is not an opportunity to reargue the case

9The Request is dismissed.