Waskowec v. Cramahe (Municipality), 2013 HRTO 1381

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Peter Waskowec

Applicant

-and-

Municipiality of the Township of Cramahe, Marc Coombs, Jim Williams, Clinton Breau, Ed Van Egmond, Pat Westrope, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Ministry of the Attorney General, John Gerretson, and Jim Watson

Respondents

Reconsideration DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: August 14, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1381

Indexed as: Waskowec v. Cramahe (Municipality)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Peter Waskowec, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1The applicant filed an Application on October 31, 2012 under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging reprisal and discrimination with respect to services because of ancestry, ethnic origin, and age. The Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be held to determine whether there was no reasonable prospect that the Application would succeed. The summary hearing was held on June 28, 2013. On July 3, 2013, the Tribunal issued its Decision, 2013 HRTO 1149, finally dismissing the Application (the “Decision”). The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision.

BACKGROUND

2Paragraphs 11-17 of the Decision review the applicant’s submissions at the Summary Hearing and the conclusion of the Tribunal that the applicant could not point to evidence that would support his position that the respondents violated the Code:

…The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide examples of the respondents’ conduct which best demonstrate reprisal and discrimination as defined in the Code.

The applicant described how he is an outsider in the community because he comes from Eastern Europe and is Slavic in contrast to the people in positions of power with the Municipality who have English and French ancestry. He believes that the respondents have been fraudulent and criminal in their dealings with him because he is not of the same ancestry as them. As an example, he explained that he asked for certain tax bills related to his property, but was denied. He asserts that there can be no legitimate reason for such a denial; therefore he argues that he is entitled to conclude that the denial is because of his ancestry, ethnic origin and age.

Another example he provided is his belief that the respondents arranged for separate criminal assaults on his nephews to send him a message. He also believes that the reason for which one of his nephews received allegedly bad care from a hospital was because his name is the same as the applicant’s.

The applicant also believes that the Municipality’s alleged dumping of contaminated soil on his property was in reprisal for having filed his Application, but he could not point to any evidence to support his belief.

Having read the applicant’s Application and submissions and having heard his oral submissions at the summary hearing, I conclude that the applicant has no evidence to support his allegations of violations of the Code. Given the applicant’s inability to point to evidence, it does not matter that the applicant states that he “knows” the respondents’ conduct is because of the grounds he cites in his Application or because of reprisal. Without evidence, he can merely suppose. Mere supposition or belief is not sufficient for the applicant to meet the burden of proof required of him. See Forde v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1389, at para. 17.

Without any evidence or the reasonable prospect that such evidence is available to him in order to link the alleged conduct of the respondents to the applicant’s ancestry, ethnic origin, age or reprisal for having claimed or for having tried to enforce his rights under the Code, the applicant has no reasonable prospect of demonstrating that the respondents discriminated against him because of those grounds, or reprised against him contrary to the Code.

THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

3The Request for Reconsideration provides the following reasons why the Tribunal should reconsider its Decision:

• 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
• other factors exist that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

4The Tribunal did not direct the respondents to respond to the Request for Reconsideration, and they have not done so.

DECISION

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 (Practice Direction on Reconsideration, January 2008, last amended March 2010).

7Most relevant to this Reconsideration Decision is Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice which 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.

8The 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.

9As is evident from the above, reconsideration is a discretionary remedy. That is, while the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to reopen and reconsider its own decisions, it is not obliged to do so. It may decide when reconsideration is advisable, both through the promulgation of rules setting out conditions for the exercise of its discretion, and through the application of its discretion on a case-by-case basis.

10The applicant relies on Rule 26.5(c) and (d), but I find that he has not met the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration on those grounds. The applicant submits that the Decision conflicts with Roncarelli v. Duplessis, 1959 CanLII 50 (SCC), with the Interpretation Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.I.11, and with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217 A (III), U.N. Doc. A/810 (1948) 71. He does not, however, provide any analysis that would justify his position. No argument is made to demonstrate that the findings made in the Decision are in conflict with established jurisprudence. The Tribunal stated in Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34, that a “conflict with established jurisprudence or procedure” requires (at a minimum) that there be a settled understanding about the legal rules that apply, and a clear and surprising departure from those legal rules. While the applicant clearly disagrees with the conclusions of the Tribunal, I am satisfied that his submissions on this Request do not establish that the Tribunal’s Decision conflicts with established jurisprudence or procedure.

11The applicant’s submissions do not state exactly what factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions, but it would appear that he believes the summary hearing was unfair. The applicant argues in his reconsideration submissions that I treated him “viciously” at the summary hearing, principally, by not letting him make argument on the law. This is not accurate. The applicant was simply reminded that the purpose of the summary hearing, as stated in the Tribunal’s Case Assessment Direction of March 21, 2013, was to provide him with an opportunity to point to evidence and alleged facts with which he would link the respondents’ alleged actions to the grounds alleged, or to an intention by the respondents to commit a reprisal. I merely directed the applicant to focus on describing evidence that he planned to use to demonstrate that the respondents had reprised against him or discriminated against him on the basis of the alleged grounds. His submissions at the summary hearing could not do so, and his reconsideration submissions similarly describe no such evidence. His arguments about certain aspects of very important domestic and international law do not help him remedy his lack of possible relevant evidence pertaining to the respondents’ alleged actions and allegations of violations of the Code.

12Finally, the applicant, in his submissions, essentially repeats arguments made orally before the Tribunal. A request for reconsideration is not an opportunity to restate or re-argue a position already advanced and considered.

13In sum, I find that the applicant has not established the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26 that would lead to reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision. The Request is denied.

ORDER

14The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.