Dai v. Presbyterian Church in Canada, 2013 HRTO 134

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Peikang Dai

Applicant

-and-

Presbyterian Church in Canada et al.

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: January 25, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 134

Indexed as: Dai v. Presbyterian Church in Canada

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Peikang Dai, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1The applicant has filed a Request to Reconsider the Tribunal’s Decision 2012 HRTO 1975, dated October 17, 2012.

2The Decision noted that the Application was the fifth Application filed by the applicant and that the present Application was essentially the same as the earlier Applications which had all been dismissed by the Tribunal. At paragraph 16, the Decision stated:

It is clear that the Application in this case is, in essence, an attempt to re-litigate matters that the Tribunal has already determined. To permit this would result in an abuse of the Tribunal’s process.

3The Decision also declared the applicant to be a vexatious litigant in respect of any Application or related proceeding he may seek to bring against the Presbyterian Church of Canada, any of its affiliated organizations or individuals associated with the Church or affiliated organizations.

4The Request for Reconsideration (“the Request”) is 33 pages in length and includes a voluminous attachment. The applicant delivered a copy of the Request and the attachments to 63 people who the Request indicates are respondents. The Application to which the Request relates named 50 personal respondents. For the most part the Request re-states the applicant’s complaints about the respondents and his complaints about why the Tribunal has failed to agree with him that he has been subjected to discrimination contrary to the Code. The Request indicates that the applicant does not agree with the Decision and feels that it is unfair.

5Under 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.

6The Tribunal has issued Rules governing such requests as well as a Practice Direction to provide guidance to the community on the Tribunal’s exercise of its reconsideration powers. Rule 26 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states:

26.1 Any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within (thirty) 30 days of the date of the decision

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.

7The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration begins with the following statements:

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.

8In this case, the applicant has not provided any basis to conclude that any of the factors identified in Rule 26 apply. He indicates that there is new information and refers to the immigration status of members of the community. This does not appear to be relevant to the issue of whether the Application was an abuse of the Tribunal’s process or whether the applicant was properly declared a vexatious litigant.

9The applicant indicates that the Decision contains an error at paragraph 21 which stated:

I note that the applicant has sent weekly emails with attachments of over 400 pages to a large number of individuals associated with the Church. The emails are all virtually the same and have now been sent over 1,400 times.

10According to the Request, this information is not correct as the attachments that have been sent with the emails comprise 4,000 pages rather than 400 pages. Even if this was an error, if corrected, it would not change the outcome of the Decision, rather it supports the conclusions reached that the applicant is conducting himself in a vexatious manner.

11The Request sets out complaints about the hearing. These complaints concern the fact that the applicant was not permitted to testify and that the individual respondents were not required to appear. As noted at paragraph 5 of the Decision, the purpose of the hearing was set out in the Tribunal’s Case Assessment Direction of June 15, 2012. That purpose was reviewed at the outset of the hearing and the applicant understood that the purpose of the hearing was to determine whether:

a. The Application should be dismissed, in whole or in part, because another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application; or

b. The Application should be dismissed in whole or in part, because it would be an abuse of process for the Application to proceed; and

c. The Tribunal should designate the applicant as a vexatious litigant and refuse to allow him to file any further applications without leave of the Tribunal.

12None of the issues required the applicant to testify or that the respondents participate in person instead of through counsel. The applicant was provided an opportunity to provide oral and written submissions on the issues raised in the Case Assessment Direction.

13It is apparent that the Request to Reconsider is an attempt to again reargue issues that were dealt with at the hearing and in previous applications to the Tribunal.

14I find that the applicant has not provided any reason that would allow the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision. The Request to Reconsider is denied.