HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Jing Huo
Applicant
-and-
University of Western Ontario
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha
Date: March 7, 2012
Citation: 2012 HRTO 482
Indexed as: Huo v. University of Western Ontario
[1] This Application was filed under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) on October 14, 2011, alleging discrimination with respect to services, goods and facilities because of disability.
[2] The Application was dismissed by way of Decision [2012 HRTO 198](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2012/198). The Decision concluded that the Application was outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because it was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.
[3] On February 24, 2012, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration (“Request”). In the Request, the applicant checked off the box that indicates the Request is being made because the decision is in conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance.
[4] In response to the Question 3, which requires the party seeking reconsideration to provide “detailed reasons and representations” in support of the Request, the applicant simply wrote “[t]he Adjudicator made an error in law on the decision dated Jan 27, 2012.” However, the applicant did not specify the nature of the alleged error.
[5] Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provide 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.
[6] It is noteworthy that the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration expressly states that:
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.
[7] Rule 26.3 states that a request for reconsideration “must include” reasons for the request, including the basis upon which the Tribunal is asked to grant the request for reconsideration and submissions in support of the request.
[8] As previously noted, the applicant did not set out the basis upon which he alleges the Decision was erroneous in law and did not provide any submissions in support of his Request. The applicant has failed to provide the necessary “detailed reasons and representations”. As a result, there is no basis in the material submitted by the applicant to support his reconsideration request.
[9] The applicant has failed to meet the criteria set out in the Tribunal’s Rules. Accordingly, the request for reconsideration is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 7th day of March, 2012.
“signed by”
Ena Chadha
Vice-chair