Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Randy King
Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care and the Minister of Community and Social Services
Respondents
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty
Indexed as: King v. Ontario (Health and Long-Term Care)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Randy King, Applicant ) Self-represented
Reasons for Decision
1The applicant filed this Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The parties participated in a mediation on October 27, 2011, at the conclusion of which the parties completed and executed a Form 25, confirming that they had entered into minutes of settlement and waiving their right to make oral submissions before the Tribunal.
2The Form 25 was filed with the Tribunal. However, before the Tribunal had administratively closed its file, the applicant sought to set aside the minutes of settlement and the Form 25 and to proceed with the Application.
3After reviewing the written submissions filed by the parties, the Tribunal denied the applicant’s request to void the Form 25 and the minutes of settlement: see 2011 HRTO 2228. I held that the parties had entered into a binding settlement agreement, the finality of which does not depend upon the Tribunal administratively closing its file. Further, I concluded that, even if the applicant’s allegations regarding the circumstances surrounding the signing of the minutes of settlement and the Form 25 were accepted, they did not amount to duress and do not form a basis for setting aside the agreement and proceeding with the Application.
4The applicant has filed a Request for Reconsideration (“Request”) and submissions in support of the Request. A respondent is not required to respond to a Request for Reconsideration unless directed to do so by the Tribunal. In the circumstances of this Request, the Tribunal did not deem it necessary to seek submissions from the respondents.
5For the reasons that follow, the Request is dismissed. The applicant has presented no basis to reconsider the Tribunal’s Decision.
6Pursuant to section 45.7 of the Code, any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may 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 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 decision.
7Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of its case. In this regard, it is helpful 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.
8In his Request, the applicant indicates that the Decision ought to be reconsidered because it is in conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure and because