Graham v. Underground Miata Networks Association Inc., 2013 HRTO 1732

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Donna Graham Applicant

-and-

Underground Miata Network Association Inc. Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty Date: October 15, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1732 Indexed as: Graham v. Underground Miata Networks Association Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Donna Graham, Applicant Self-represented

Introduction

1The Application related to whether a policy requiring club members to use Citizen Band ("CB") radios in certain circumstances discriminates against the applicant because of her hearing disability. The respondent is a club of Miata car enthusiasts that, among other things, operates member-lead car tours. During these tours, members of the club typically travel in their Miata convertibles in a convoy to a pre-determined destination. The respondent's policy is that the member leading the tour determines whether use of a CB radio is mandatory for that particular tour.

2On August 26, 2013, I issued a Decision dismissing the Application: 2013 HRTO 1457. I found that the respondent's policy requiring participants to use a CB radio did not differentially impact the applicant. Second, I found that even if the applicant was differentially impacted and the duty to accommodate was triggered, she did not take reasonable steps to collaborate with that process. Finally, I found that the applicant had not established that the respondent intentionally reprised against her because she asserted rights under the Code.

3On September 25, 2013, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration. The respondent has not responded to the applicant's Request for Reconsideration and, in the circumstances, it is not necessary to do so.

4The applicant has presented no basis to reconsider the Decision. For the reasons that follow, the Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

5Pursuant to section 45.7 of the Code, any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may request that it reconsider its decision. The Rules elaborate on the conditions and requirements of such a request.

6Rule 26.5 states that a 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.

7Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of its case. In this regard, it is helpful 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.

8In her Request for Reconsideration, the applicant argues that there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier. In essence, the applicant:

a. argues that she just realized one of the respondent's witnesses lied under oath about receipt of a document;

b. disputes my conclusion that she did not collaborate with the accommodation process and identifies ways in which she explored using her marine radio in the car;

c. argues that the respondent ought to have advised her that she could have borrowed a CB radio from the club;

d. argues that her husband could not reasonably pull off the road to use the CB radio; and

e. submits additional information in support of her contention that she could not have installed speakers in her vehicle.

9None of the arguments advanced by the applicant support her Request for Reconsideration within the meaning of Rule 26. First, the applicant does not explain why, and presents no basis for me to conclude that, the respondent's receipt or not of a specific document (an email from Mark Baker) is possibly determinative of the Application. There is no basis to conclude that the email in question had any material bearing on the conclusions I reached in the Decision. Second, the remaining arguments (see paragraph 8(b) to (e), above) and additional information advanced by the applicant either or were or could have been presented at the hearing of this matter and I am not satisfied that this information could not reasonably have been obtained earlier.

10It is apparent that the applicant disagrees with the Decision. However, she has presented no basis to reconsider it. For all of these reasons, the Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.