<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
______________________________________________________________________
<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
B E T W E E N:
David Vizcaya
Applicant
-and-
UJA Federation of Greater Toronto and Doron Horowitz
Respondents
______________________________________________________________________
<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
______________________________________________________________________
Adjudicator: Brian Cook
<!--mc:cls:cover-meta-->
Date: July 24, 2013
<!--mc:cls:cover-meta-->
Citation: 2013 HRTO 1285
<!--mc:cls:cover-line-->
Indexed as: Vizcaya v. UJA Federation of Greater Toronto
______________________________________________________________________
<!--mc:close:case-cover-->
## WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
David Vizcaya, Applicant
Self-represented
## Introduction
[1] The applicant has filed a Request for Reconsideration of Decision [2013 HRTO 666](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2013/666) (“the Decision”). The Decision, dated April 22, 2013, dismissed the Application because the applicant’s manner of communication with the respondents and the Tribunal was found to have resulted in an abuse of the Tribunal’s process.
[2] The applicant sent an email on May 22, 2013, setting out his Request for Reconsideration (“the Request”). The Tribunal’s Request for Reconsideration form was filed on July 8, 2013.
[3] Under section 45.7 of the Code, the Tribunal may, at the request of a party or on its own initiative, reconsider its decisions in accordance with Tribunal’s Rules:
> 45.7(1) Any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may request that the Tribunal reconsider its decision in accordance with the Tribunal rules.
>
> (2) Upon request under subsection (1) or on its own motion, the Tribunal may reconsider its decision in accordance with its rules.
[4] Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states:
> 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.
[5] The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration states:
> 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.
[6] The Request set out in the applicant’s May 22, 2013 email is essentially a re-statement of the same arguments that the applicant made in his various submissions prior to the Decision and that were dealt with in the Decision. He re-states his position that any problem with his manner of communication is excused by a disability and his position that any intemperate language was fully justified by the allegations about the respondents. He also re-states his negative opinions of the respondents, their counsel, and of me.
[7] As noted above, the purpose of the Tribunal’s reconsideration process is not to provide another opportunity to make the same arguments that have already been made and considered. The Request does not establish the existence of any of the factors that the Tribunal may apply when considering a Request for Reconsideration and the Request is denied on that basis.
## DECISION
[8] The applicant's Request for Reconsideration is denied.
<!--mc:open:case-tail-->
Dated at Toronto, this 24<sup>th</sup> day of July, 2013.
“Signed by”
__________________________________
Brian Cook
Vice-chair
<!--mc:close:case-tail-->
minicounsel