Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
Between:
Richard Reiter Applicant
-and-
St. Stephen’s Community House Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Ian R. Mackenzie Date: July 6, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1351 Indexed as: Reiter v. St. Stephen’s Community House
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Richard Russell Reiter, Applicant Self-represented
Introduction
1On February 14, 2012, the Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, 2012 HRTO 315, dismissing the Application. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision in accordance with section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”).
2The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration on March 6, 2012. He subsequently filed a Request for an Order during a Proceeding, asking for an extension of time to complete his Request for Reconsideration, asking that a lawyer be appointed to assist him, and providing further documentation. On April 3, 2012, the Registrar of the HRTO advised the applicant that the HRTO had no authority to appoint a legal representative. The Registrar also stated that no further action would be taken with regards to the Request for Reconsideration unless and until confirmation was received that his Request was complete and no further submissions were to be made. On June 4, 2012, the applicant advised that his submissions of March 6, 2012 “represent my entire request” for reconsideration. Accordingly, I have not considered the material filed by the applicant subsequent to March 6, 2012.
BACKGROUND
3In his Application, the applicant alleged discrimination in goods, services and facilities on the basis of association with a person identified by a prohibited ground of discrimination and reprisal. The respondent, St. Stephen’s Community House, is a non-profit charitable organization that provides a variety of community services in the Kensington Market area and surrounding neighbourhoods. The respondent has a “good neighbour” policy and has actively discouraged visitors to St. Stephen’s Community House from loitering or sitting on their neighbours’ properties. The applicant challenged the application of that policy to him. He also alleged that he faced a reprisal because he was told that unless he obeyed the rules of the good neighbour policy he would have to seek services elsewhere. He also alleged that the lack of response from the respondent to his concerns was a reprisal.
4The Decision dismissing his Application stated:
… the Tribunal does not have the general power to deal with allegations of unfairness. It can only deal with discrimination on the grounds set out in the Code. To succeed in an application, an applicant must be able to prove a link between a respondent’s alleged actions and a Code ground. The allegations raised by the applicant relate to property rights and the ability of St. Stephen’s to tell its clients where they can congregate. The applicant has not shown a link between his association with someone identified by a prohibited ground and the alleged actions of the respondent. He has not alleged that the “good neighbour” policy has been applied in a discriminatory manner.
The reprisal section of the Code only applies to actions that are intended as a reprisal for asserting one’s human rights under the Code. See Noble v. York University, 2010 HRTO 878 at para. 31. In his Application and in his submissions the applicant has not identified a reprisal or threat of reprisal for raising his rights under the Code.
The applicant has not demonstrated a link between the actions of the respondent and a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Code. He has also not identified a reprisal or threat of reprisal for raising his rights under the Code. In sum, he has not demonstrated that there is a reasonable prospect of success of the Application.
THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
5The applicant has relied on the following reasons to support his Request for Reconsideration:
a. There are new facts that could potentially be determinative of the case and could not reasonably have been obtained earlier;
b. The decision is in conflict with established case law and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance; and
c. Other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.
6The applicant stated that he disagreed with the conclusions on the law contained in