Davidson v. Christie/Ossington Neighbourhood Centre, 2013 HRTO 1001

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Adam Davidson

Applicant

-and-

Christie/Ossington Neighbourhood Centre and Andrene Graham

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright

Date: June 5, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1001

Indexed as: Davidson v. Christie/Ossington Neighbourhood Centre

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Adam Davidson, Applicant

Self-represented

1The applicant requests reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision dismissing this Application, 2013 HRTO 665. He relies upon Rule 26.5 (a) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, which reads 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…

2Reconsideration is not an appeal, and is granted only in exceptional cases. As the Tribunal stated in Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board et al., 2008 HRTO 34, at para. 56:

As is evident from the Rules and made explicit in Practice Direction #4, reconsideration is not an appeal. It is not an opportunity to re-argue a case. Once the parties to a case have had the opportunity to present their evidence and arguments to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal has made a decision disposing of the issues, parties are entitled to treat the matter as closed, subject to limited exceptions.

3Rule 26.5.1 reads as follows:

26.5.1 A Request for Reconsideration made more than 30 days following the Decision will not be granted unless the Tribunal determines that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay.

4The applicant takes issue with the fact that the adjudicator at the hearing was different from the adjudicator who had done a pre-hearing Case Assessment Direction and an Interim Decision. This is not a ground for reconsideration. It is sometimes the case that a different adjudicator deals with different issues in an application, and an adjudicator is generally not considered “seized” of an application until he or she has heard evidence on the merits.

5The applicant states that he has found more witnesses who may be able to testify to the issues. He states that witnesses that appeared at the hearing were not those he had anticipated and that he could not “accurately put together face and name”. There is no basis to find that this evidence could not reasonably have been obtained earlier, which is required under Rule 26.5 (a).

6Reconsideration is not granted because of disagreement with the adjudicator’s conclusions, nor because a party wishes to call further evidence it did not call earlier. The applicant’s submissions do not establish a valid basis for reconsideration.

7The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.