Harrison v. Stephenson’s Rental Services Inc., 2012 HRTO 1978

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Stacey Harrison

Applicant

-and-

Stephenson’s Rental Services Inc. and Marco Tavolieri

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: October 18, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1978

Indexed as: Harrison v. Stephenson’s Rental Services Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Stacey Harrison, Applicant

Self-represented

Stephenson’s Rental Services Inc. and Marco Tavolieri, Respondents

Sara Gottlieb, Counsel

1On May 28, 2012 the Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, 2012 HRTO 1057, (the Decision) dismissing the Application as abandoned in large part because the the applicant failed to respond in any way to a Case Assessment Direction issued on May 16, 2012 requiring the applicant to deliver and file her materials in accordance with Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules. The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Decision on June 26, 2012.

2The Request for Reconsideration provided the following reasons why the Tribunal should reconsider its Decision:

Was not given notice of the information required due to homelessness.

3In the circumstances the submissions of the respondent were requested. In its response to the Request the respondents objected to the Request for the following reasons:

a. The prior indulgences and extensions the applicant has previously been extended by the Tribunal with respect to her repeated failure to provide adequate particulars of her claims in order to apprise the respondents of the case they have to meet;

b. The immense delays and expenditure of resources the applicant has already occasioned the respondents and the Tribunal;

c. The applicant’s failure to put forward any evidence to substantiate the grounds for her reconsideration request.

4In a Case Assessment Direction issued on September 14, 2012 I indicated that I was not satisfied that the applicant had provided sufficient information to properly deal with her Request. I further indicated that I agreed with the respondents that the applicant had provided no evidence to substantiate her general assertion that she had not received notice of the “information required” due to homelessness.

5The applicant was directed to file any further submissions in support of her Request in particular addressing the following points which were set out as follows in the CAD:

The applicant does not explain why, being notified on December 12, 2011(and again in February 2012) that a hearing had been scheduled to take place on June 21, 2012 she did not advise the Tribunal and the respondents of her situation in the intervening months. I also note that the applicant has communicated with the Tribunal by email. Amongst other communications by email was a request by the applicant that the Notice of Hearing be sent to her by email in early February 2012. The May 16, 2012 Case Assessment Direction was also sent to the applicant by email and regular mail. The applicant’s brief submission also does not explain why she did not receive this material.

6The applicant has not responded to the September 14, 2012 CAD. Accordingly this Request will be decided based on the submissions received to date.

7Any party may file a Request for Reconsideration of a final Decision of the Tribunal under section 45.7 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended, (the “Code”).

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.

8The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provide that any party may request reconsideration of a decision in accordance with Rule 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.

9It is also useful to consider the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration, which states in part:

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.

10Reconsideration is a discretionary remedy. That is, while the Tribunal has the authority in certain circumstances to reconsider its own decisions, it is not obliged to do so. As is clear from the Code the Tribunal may decide when reconsideration of a Decision is appropriate, both through the making of rules governing the exercise of the discretion and in the determination on a case-by-case basis of how the rules will be applied.

11The applicant made no reference to section 47.5 of the Code, or the factors that can be considered by the Tribunal in Rule 26.5 above. The applicant’s claim isthat she was unaware of the progress of the case including the notice given to her that she needed to provide her disclosure or her Application might be dismissed as abandoned. This claim would appear to fall under either factors (b) or (d) of Rule 26.5.

12The Request for Reconsideration is denied. I am not satisfied based on all of the circumstances set out above including the submissions of the respondent that the applicant was not receiving timely notice of the hearing date and her obligations to comply with the production requirements under the Tribunal’s Rules. Based on a review of the Tribunal’s file it is not clear that the applicant’s assertion that she was homeless is entirely accurate although it does appear that she may have moved in the months prior to the hearing date but did not advise the Tribunal of her new street address. In any event the applicant was in communication with the Tribunal by email at various times but offered no explanation for her not having received materials delivered to her by email including the CAD of May 16, 2012. In short I am not satisfied that the applicant did not receive timely notice of these proceedings or the CAD of May 16, 2012. Accordingly there is no basis for reconsideration of the Decision and this Request must be dismissed.