Hardman v. Grey County Housing, 2012 HRTO 1142

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mary Hardman

Applicant

-and-

Grey County Housing

Respondent

Reconsideration DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: June 11, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1142

Indexed as: Hardman v. Grey County Housing

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Mary Hardman, Applicant

Self-represented

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 February 19, 2010, alleging discrimination in the area of housing because of disability and receipt of public assistance.

2By way of a decision 2011 HRTO 1537, the Application was dismissed on August 24, 2011 as abandoned because the applicant failed to participate in a conference call hearing and did not advise the Tribunal or the respondent of her intention not to attend.

3This Reconsideration Decision addresses the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration of this Tribunal’s Decision dismissing her Application.

RECONSIDERATION REQUEST

4On April 4, 2012, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration asking the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision on the basis that other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of the Tribunal decisions. The applicant’s submissions constitute a single sentence in which she states that she “was sick and unable to talk due to laryngitis at the time of the phone conference call”.

5Section 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. Most relevant to this Reconsideration Decision is Rule 26 which states:

26.1 Any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within (thirty) 30 days of the date of the decision [emphasis added]

6I note that, on the basis of delay alone, the Tribunal may deny the Request for Reconsideration. See der von Felix v. International Financial Data Services (Canada), 2010 HRTO 362 and Liu v. Country Herbs, 2011 HRTO 1166.

7A request for reconsideration filed beyond the 30 day deadline will not be granted unless the Tribunal determines that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay. I find that no explanation has been offered for the inordinate delay in filing this Request for Reconsideration and no explanation as to why she was unable to comply with the Tribunal’s Rules.

8The applicant was required to file her reconsideration request within 30 days of the Tribunal’s August 24, 2011 Decision. However, the applicant did not submit this Request for Reconsideration until April 4, 2012, at which point the deadline for reconsideration had long elapsed. The applicant has provided no meaningful information or justification for why the Request for Reconsideration was made over six months beyond the timeline stipulated in Rule 26.

9As such, I find that the applicant did not establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

10In addition, I find that even if the request had been made in a timely manner, the grounds for seeking reconsideration do not meet the reconsideration criteria set out in Rule 26. 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.

11The applicant claims she missed the conference call because she was sick and unable to talk due to laryngitis. While having laryngitis may have prevented her from participating in the conference call hearing, the applicant did not provide any explanation as to why she failed to advise the Tribunal in writing, or through an alternate means of contact, about her inability to attend on the call. Further, the applicant did not provide any medical confirmation of her condition. The applicant has failed to offer an adequate explanation for her failure to give notice or alert the Tribunal that she was unable to participate in the hearing and, therefore, I am not satisfied that the applicant has shown that there is a basis under Rule 26.5 to reconsider the Tribunal’s Decision.

12The Tribunal has issued a Practice Direction to provide guidance on the Tribunal’s exercise of its reconsideration powers (Practice Direction on Reconsideration, January 2008 amended June 2008). The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration states, in part, the following with respect to the Tribunal’s power to grant reconsideration:

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.

13Based on my review of the reconsideration request, I do not find that any of the criteria supporting reconsideration of the original decision have been established. The applicant has not identified any new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier. The applicant’s request does not raise issues of general importance nor outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

14In conclusion, I find that the applicant failed to file her Request for Reconsideration in a timely manner and has not established the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26.5 that would lead to reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Interim Decision.

15Accordingly, the request for reconsideration is denied.