Natalia Mikhailova v. Toronto Community Housing and Nancy Fox, 2012 HRTO 1435

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Natalia Mikhailova

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Community Housing and Nancy Fox

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume

Date: July 23, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1435

Indexed as: Mikhailova v. Toronto Community Housing

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Natalia Mikhailova, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, 2012 HRTO 423, pursuant to section 45.7 of the Ontario Human Rights Code R.S.O., c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application was dismissed at the conclusion of a Summary Hearing for no reasonable prospect of success.

2Section 45.7 of the Code provides the Tribunal with authority and discretion to reconsider its decisions:

45.7(1) Any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may request that the Tribunal reconsider its decision in accordance with the Tribunal rules.

(2) Upon request under subsection (1) or on its own motion, the Tribunal may reconsider its decision in accordance with its rules.

3The Tribunal has issued rules governing Requests for Reconsideration, as well as a Practice Direction to provide guidance to the community on the Tribunal’s exercise of its reconsideration powers.

4Rule 26.5 states 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; 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 and orders.

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.

6Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of its case. In Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34, the Tribunal confirmed that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case. Once the parties to an application have had the opportunity to present their evidence and arguments to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal has made a decision disposing of the issues, parties are entitled to treat the matter as closed, subject to limited exceptions.

7This Application was dismissed following both written and oral submissions. The applicant was required to demonstrate that the respondent’s treatment of her was based in part, on the prohibited grounds alleged in the Application.

8The Request for Reconsideration cites Rule 26.5 (c) and (d). In the narrative of the Request the applicant makes it clear that the basis for the Request is that the applicant disagrees with the correctness of my Decision.

9There appears to be a misunderstanding on the applicant’s part which should be addressed. The applicant cites a sentence from the Decision which states that “there is no evidence that even if the rent was miscalculated, it was done so, because of the applicant’s disability or because she is a person in receipt of public assistance”. The applicant submits that she provided 39 documents proving her allegations of harassment. Some of those documents relate, for example, to proof of her medical status which is not in dispute. The use of the words “no evidence” is not meant to suggest that the applicant did not file documents or that her documents were ignored. The statement means that the documents she filed, as well as her oral submissions, are not sufficient to prove her allegations.

10The applicant also alleges that the Tribunal should have provided reasons in relation to each of the 39 documents filed to support her Application. The Tribunal is not required to undertake an exhaustive explanation of how each document relates to the applicant’s allegations. The documents and submissions of the parties were fully considered in determining that the Application deals with allegations of unfairness that are not within the power of the Tribunal to resolve.

11None of these findings are meant to diminish in any way the obvious distress that applicant is experiencing as a result of her cancer diagnosis.

12The issues raised in the Reconsideration Request were considered as part of the original Decision. None of the factors in Rule 26.5 are engaged by the Request for Reconsideration. There is no basis on which I might exercise my discretion to overturn my original decision in this matter. Accordingly the Request for Reconsideration is denied.