Shaikh v. York Condominium Corporation #60, 2013 HRTO 1195

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Samina Salim Shaikh Applicant

-and-

York Condominium Corporation #60 and Joginder Grewal Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Keene Date: July 9, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1195 Indexed as: Shaikh v. York Condominium Corporation #60

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Samina Salim Shaikh, Applicant

Mohammed Shaikh, Representative

Introduction

1The Tribunal issued a Decision, 2013 HRTO 396, with respect to this Application on March 8, 2013. On April 5, 2013, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision. The Request was apparently delivered to the respondent on the same date. The respondent was not required to file submissions.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

2Section 45.7 of the Code allows any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal to request it to 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) 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.

3The applicant does not refer to the above-noted Rule. In recognition of the fact that the applicant’s representative is not a lawyer or a paralegal, I have reviewed the applicant’s written submissions against all of Rule 26.5’s grounds for reconsideration.

4It is useful 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.

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

5The Decision under reconsideration is a decision to dismiss an Application under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application alleged discrimination in respect of services, goods and facilities on the basis of sex. The Application was dismissed on the basis that, after repeated adjournments, offers of accommodation and directions by the Tribunal, the applicant failed to give information that would enable the Tribunal to arrange for accommodation at a hearing of needs related to disability, and to specify when she would be ready to proceed to a hearing. The information given to date had not specified why the applicant’s doctor had indicated in a brief note that the applicant was unable to attend with accommodation. The Application was dismissed on the basis that the applicant had in effect requested an indefinite stay of proceedings, which raised considerations of fairness to the respondents and their witnesses.

6The Request for Reconsideration acknowledges the instructions as to what information was required as set out in various Case Assessment Directions and Interim Decisions in this matter. The applicant’s representative appears to place the responsibility for ensuring that the Tribunal receive the requested information on the applicant’s doctor. It is understood that a patient cannot force a doctor to respond in any particular way. However, the responsibility to identify when the applicant would be available for a hearing and what accommodations might be required rested on the applicant and her representative. It was open to the applicant to propose one or more dates and to specify what accommodation might be required, as she had done previously in the course of this Application, with or without the cooperation of her doctor.

7In any event, the applicant has not established that any of the factors noted in Rule 26.5 apply in this case. Reconsideration is denied.