HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

David Vizcaya

Applicant

-and-

UJA Federation of Greater Toronto and Doron Horowitz

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: August 16, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1416

Indexed as: Vizcaya v. UJA Federation of Greater Toronto

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

David Vizcaya, Applicant

Self-represented

1In Decision 2013 HRTO 1142, the Tribunal declared the applicant to be a vexatious litigant, meaning that he must obtain leave of the Tribunal if he wishes to file future Applications with the Tribunal.

2That Decision followed Decision 2013 HRTO 666, which dismissed the Application against the UJA Federation of Greater Toronto and Doron Horowitz as an abuse of process. The applicant has previously filed a Request for Reconsideration of that Decision, which was denied in Decision 2013 HRTO 1285.

[1] 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.

2Rule 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.

3The 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.

4In the present Request for Reconsideration the applicant asks that the Decision declaring him to be a vexatious litigant be set aside. In his submissions, the applicant has re-iterated his views of the respondents and his opinions about me and other Tribunal adjudicators. The tone of these submissions is consistent with the tone expressed in his earlier communications, which in turn contributed to the dismissal of the Application as an abuse of process and also to the determination that he should be declared a vexatious litigant. The submissions certainly express the applicant’s dissatisfaction with the way his Application was dealt with and the various decisions that have been made along the way. Apart from this dissatisfaction, the submissions do not identify any factor that would provide a basis for reconsideration of Decision 2013 HRTO 1142.

5For this reason, the Request for Reconsideration is denied.