Campbell v. Papa Larry’s Restaurant, 2012 HRTO 1877

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

James Campbell

Applicant

-and-

Papa Larry’s Restaurant

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume

Date: October 3, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1877

Indexed as: Campbell v. Papa Larry’s Restaurant

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

James Campbell, Applicant

Self-represented

1The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, 2012 HRTO 1137, pursuant to section 45.7 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O., c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

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 scheduled for hearing on January 10, 2012. Both parties failed to comply with their pre-hearing obligations under Rules 16 and 17 to deliver to every other party and file with the Tribunal a witness list, witness statements, and copies of documents the parties intended to rely on at the hearing.

8The application was also set to take place in Ottawa. The applicant, who is deaf, now lives in Kitchener and advised the Tribunal that he was unable to participate in the hearing if his physical presence was required in Ottawa. The respondent opposed his request to change the venue and as a result, the Tribunal staff determined that the venue would remain in Ottawa.

9I directed that a conference call take place to explore the options for accommodating the applicant with respect to his participation in the hearing, to address the Rule 16 and 17 non-compliance issues and the respondent’s timeliness allegations The applicant advised the Tribunal that interpretation services for the call were not available and as a result, I indicated that I would issue a CAD on the next steps to be taken in the Application.

10The CAD was issued January 6, 2012. The applicant was directed to address the issue of timeliness. The applicant filed written submissions and the Application was dismissed. That Decision is the subject of the Request for Reconsideration.

11The Request for Reconsideration cites Rule 26.5 (b). In the narrative of the Request the applicant indicates that he was entitled to have the original conference call rescheduled. However, the applicant was advised to expect a CAD setting out the next steps in the application and was directed by the CAD to respond to the issue of timeliness in writing. If the application had not been dismissed for timeliness a conference call would have been arranged to address a number of case management and accommodation issues in advance of the hearing. This call was not necessary as a result of the Decision on timeliness.

12Accordingly, the Request for Reconsideration is denied.