Jarrett v. Timothy Vance, 2012 HRTO 373

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Joanne Jarrett

Applicant

-and-

Timothy Vance

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: February 22, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 373

Indexed as: Jarrett v. Timothy Vance

1This Application was dismissed by way of Decision 2012 HRTO 24, pursuant to section 34(11) of the Code, because of an on-going civil proceeding with respect to the same allegations and remedies raised in the Application.

2The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration asking the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision. The applicant alleges that 1) there are new facts or evidence, 2) she did not receive notice of the respondent’s request to dismiss and 3) other factors exist that outweight the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions. The applicant asserts that she is no longer pursuing any other civil court action. The applicant further claims that, through no fault of her own, she was unaware that she needed to file submissions in response to the respondent’s request to dismiss.

3The respondent filed submissions opposing the reconsideration request. The respondent submits the applicant was well aware of the request to dismiss as the request was discussed during a settlement conference that the parties participated in as part of the civil process. The respondent points out that the Tribunal’s Rules are easily accessible through the Tribunal’s website and the applicant could have filed response submissions. The respondent further submits, to his knowledge, the applicant has taken no steps to cancel or stop the civil action.

RELEVANT LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

4Section 45.7 of the Code provides the Tribunal with authority to reconsider its decisions. Further to its power to make rules, the Tribunal has issued Rules of Procedure governing Requests for Reconsideration. Rule 26.5 provides 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;

(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;

(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.

DECISION

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.

Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of its case.

6On my review of the Reconsideration Request and based on the foregoing considerations, I find no basis to grant reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision.

7The Tribunal’s jurisprudence recognizes the public importance in upholding the finality of decisions subject to certain circumstances as outlined in the Practice Direction. I cannot conclude that, as asserted by the applicant, it is in the public interest to continue to deal with the Application. The applicant has not established the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26 that would lead to reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision. The applicant has not pointed to any new facts or evidence, other than to merely claim that she is no longer pursuing a civil action.

8The applicant appears to suggest that the Tribunal should maintain jurisdiction over her Application because she is no longer pursuing any other civil court action. The applicant has not provided any documentation to confirm this development, nor clarified when this officially occurred. As such, it is unclear if and when the civil lawsuit was discontinued or withdrawn.

9At the time of the Decision, it appeared, based on the information provided by the respondent, that section 34(11) applied to the circumstances of the Application. There is no basis for me to conclude that, at the time the respondent’s request was before the Tribunal, there was no concurrent civil proceeding related to the same facts and remedies that were the substance of the Application.

10Although the applicant’s reconsideration request states she did not receive proper “notice”, the applicant, in fact, appears to be asserting that she was entitled to receive instructions from the Tribunal as to what steps she needed to take to respond to the respondent’s request to dismiss. It appears that the applicant is claiming that she did not receive notice on how to file submissions in response to the respondent’s request. There is no indication that the applicant was unaware of the request to dismiss. The applicant does not deny that she received a copy of the respondent’s request nor does she deny that she understood the respondent was seeking for her Application to be dismissed. As such, it is not disputed that the applicant received notice of the request to dismiss. While the applicant may be concened that she did not have the information she desired to guide her in preparing a response, that concern does not constitute an omission of notice.

11Based on my review of the reconsideration request, I am not satisfied that any of the criteria supporting reconsideration of the original decision have been made out. The applicant has not identified any new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier. There were no issues of inadequate or absence of notice. The applicant’s submissions do not raise issues of general importance, nor outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

12In conclusion, I find that the applicant failed to establish the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26 that would lead to reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision. Accordingly, the Request for Reconsideration is denied.