HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Mohammed Karzi
Applicant
-and-
Sara Jones and David Findlay
Respondents
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson
Indexed as: Karzi v. Jones
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Mohammed Karzi, Applicant ) Self Represented
1The applicant requests Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision of October 31, 2011, 2011 HRTO 1957, dismissing this Application as having no reasonable prospect of success. The Tribunal held a Summary Hearing of the matter by teleconference on September 19, 2011.
2The circumstances in which reconsideration may be granted are set out in Rule 26.5:
26.5 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.
The 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.
Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of its case.
3The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration on November 10, 2011 and relies upon Rule 26.5(d). However, the applicant did not in my view describe factors that would outweigh the public interest in the finality of the Tribunal’s decision. Rather, the applicant restated the allegations asserted in his Application and during the Summary Hearing and submitted that respondents’ behaviour has had a very negative impact on his life. The applicant stated that he requires a face to face hearing to ensure “justice is served”. In my opinion, the applicant’s submissions engage none of the circumstances under which reconsideration may be granted under Rule 26.5. While I sympathize with the applicant, he provided no basis to conclude that compelling and extraordinary circumstances exist that would call for reconsideration of the decision to dismiss this Application.
4The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 24th day of January, 2012.
“signed by “
Douglas Sanderson
Vice-chair