Ranpreet Randhawa v. Carmelita Flaim, 2012 HRTO 45

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ranpreet Randhawa

Applicant

-and-

Carmelita Flaim

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty

Date: January 10, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 45

Indexed as: Randhawa v. Flaim

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on November 10, 2009. In an earlier Decision, dated October 11, 2011, the Tribunal dismissed the Application as abandoned: 2011 HRTO 1843.

2The applicant has filed a Request for Reconsideration in which he indicates that he was entitled to notice but, through no fault of his own, he did not receive notice of a step in the proceeding. In his Request, the applicant indicates that he has changed email addresses and that he did not receive notice at his new email address.

3The applicant identifies an email address in his Request. This email address is the same email address the Tribunal has been using to correspond with the applicant since at least March 2011.

OVERVIEW OF PROCEEDINGS

4On March 17, 2011, the Tribunal sent an email to the parties (including to the applicant at the email address identified in his Request for Reconsideration) confirming that the mediation would be held on August 19, 2011. On May 6, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Mediation to the parties confirming the time, date, and location of the mediation.

5The applicant did not attend the scheduled mediation session on August 19, 2011 and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain the failure to attend.

6On August 29, 2011, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant and directed him to advise it of his intentions with respect to the Application. The letter warned the applicant that a failure to respond to the letter in writing within ten days would be deemed an abandonment of the Application. The Tribunal’s letter was mailed to the applicant. It was not returned to the Tribunal as undeliverable.

7On October 11, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Decision dismissing the Application as abandoned: 2011 HRTO 1843.

8On October 14, 2011, the applicant contacted administrative staff at the Tribunal and indicated that he wished to proceed with the Application. It was at this time that he first advised the Tribunal of his new email address.

9On October 14, 2011, administrative staff at the Tribunal had not been made aware of the Decision dismissing the Application as abandoned. Staff at the Tribunal emailed the parties (including the applicant at the email address identified in the Request and at a hotmail.com address) and directed the applicant to communicate with the Tribunal immediately if he wished to proceed with the Application.

10On October 14, 2011, the applicant responded to the Tribunal’s email and indicated that he wishes to proceed with the Application.

DECISION AND ANALYSIS

11Under section 45.7 of the Code, the Tribunal may, at the request of a party or on its own initiative, reconsider a final decision in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The most relevant Tribunal Rule in this case is Rule 26 which reads, in part, as follows:

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 and orders.

12The applicant relies on Rule 26.5(b).

13The Request for Reconsideration is denied. First, I do not accept that the applicant did not receive notice of the various steps in this proceeding. The Tribunal’s correspondence to the applicant was either sent to the email address identified in the Request or was sent to the applicant by mail. None of the documents mailed to the applicant were returned to the Tribunal as undeliverable.

14Second, even if the applicant did not receive notice of the proceedings, I cannot conclude that this was through no fault of his own. If the applicant changed email addresses and wished to receive correspondence from the Tribunal at an address other than the one identified in the Application, he was required to advise the Tribunal of this. Rule 1.13 of the Tribunal’s Rules states that “[a] party and a party’s representative must notify the Tribunal and all parties and their representatives, in writing, of any change in their contact information, as soon as possible”. If the applicant did not receive notice of the proceedings at his new email address, it is because he did not update his address with the Tribunal.

15For all of these reasons, the Request is denied.