Sohiala Khaksar v. International Clothiers, 2012 HRTO 1887

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sohiala Khaksar

Applicant

-and-

International Clothiers

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume

Date: October 4, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1887

Indexed as: Khaksar v. International Clothiers

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Sohiala Khaksar, Applicant

Self-represented

1The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, 2012 HRTO 1071, 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 as abandoned when the applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal’s Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) of May 1, 2012.

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.

7The applicant indicates in her Request that she did not receive a copy of the Tribunal’s CAD of May 1, 2012. The applicant does not explain why she failed to comply with the Tribunal’s pre-hearing Rules, however, she was entitled to notice that her application was vulnerable to dismissal and as a result, the Request for Reconsideration is granted.

8The Registrar will schedule one day for the hearing of this matter. The applicant will be provided with a copy of the Tribunal’s CAD of May 1, 2012. If the applicant fails to comply with the directions set out in the Confirmation of Hearing, the Application may be dismissed.

9I am not seized.