HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
James Lloy Applicant
-and-
Diane Meikle Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: September 13, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1733 Indexed as: Lloy v. Meikle
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
James Lloy, Applicant Self-represented
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to services because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant originally named Diane Nichols as the respondent because he misheard her name. The applicant’s hearing impairment is a central part of the allegations in his Application.
2Not only was the name provided by the applicant incorrect, but he also provided the wrong address for the respondent, so that when the Tribunal attempted to serve the Application on the respondent it was returned. The applicant was advised by letter dated February 28, 2012 of this, and asked to provide accurate contact information.
3The applicant advises that he did respond to this by fax and assumes that this correspondence was either lost or not received. In any event, having not heard from the applicant, the Tribunal dismissed his Application as abandoned by Decision dated April 13, 2012 (2012 HRTO 744).
4The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration (Form 20) on May 1, 2012. On May 2, 2012, the Tribunal received a further submission from the applicant indicating the applicant (or the applicant’s daughter) had just spoken to the respondent on that date and obtained the correct spelling of the respondent’s last name and the proper address on which she could be served.
5The Tribunal sent a letter dated July 20, 2012 requesting submissions from the respondent on the Request for Reconsideration by August 3, 2012. No Response was received and the time for so doing has now passed.
6Section 45.7 of Code allows any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal to request that it reconsider its decision. The Rules elaborate on the conditions and requirements of such a request. Pursuant to Rule 26.5, 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.
7It is clear in this case that the failure to provide the information requested by the Tribunal concerning contact information for the respondent was inadvertently either not transmitted to or not received by the Tribunal. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s submissions that he intended to provide this information to the Tribunal in a timely manner. The respondent has not filed submissions concerning why the Tribunal should not reconsider this case, but has suggested in correspondence that, should the Tribunal be minded to allow the Request, the matter should proceed by way of a Summary Hearing.
8In light of these factors, the Request for Reconsideration is granted on the basis that factors exist that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.
Dated at Toronto, this 13^th^ day of September, 2012.
“signed by”
__________________________________
Naomi Overend Vice-chair