Devoe v. Haran, 2013 HRTO 500

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Susan Devoe

Applicant

-and-

Prabha Haran

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: March 25, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 500

Indexed as: Devoe v. Haran

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Prabha Haran, Respondent ) Self-represented

INTRODUCTION

1The purpose of this Reconsideration Decision is to address the respondent’s Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s final Decision, 2012 HRTO 1507, which upheld the Application.

BACKGROUND

2On August 1, 2012, the Tribunal issued its final Decision on the merits of the Application. The Tribunal found that the applicant established a prima facie case of discrimination under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), by proving that the respondent refused to consider her for a vacant main floor apartment because of her disability, and that the respondent did not rebut the applicant’s prima facie case of discrimination because he failed to establish that he accommodated her disability-related needs up to the point of undue hardship. The Tribunal ordered, among other things, that the respondent rent the vacant main floor apartment to the applicant, and pay her monetary compensation for the violation of her inherent right to be free from discrimination and for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect.

3On September 5, 2012, the respondent filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision. Rule 26.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provides that any party may request reconsideration of a final Decision of the Tribunal within 30 days from the date of the Decision. In light of my ruling below to deny the Request for Reconsideration because it lacks merit, it is not necessary to decide whether the Request should be dismissed because it was not filed within 30 days of the date of the Decision.

ANALYSIS

4Section 45.7(1) of the Code provides that any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may request that the Tribunal reconsider a final decision in accordance with the Tribunal rules.

5Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules states that 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.

6The Tribunal has also issued a Practice Direction on Reconsideration to provide guidance to the community on the nature of the reconsideration process. The Practice Direction 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.

Reconsideration is not an appeal.

7In his Request for Reconsideration, the respondent indicated that the Tribunal’s Decision should be reconsidered in accordance with Rule 26.5 c). However, in his submissions in support of his Request, the respondent did not explain how his Request falls within the criteria set out in Rule 26.5 c). Instead, he repeated many of the same arguments that his representative made at the hearing, and also made several new arguments that could have been, but were not, made at the hearing.

8Reconsideration is not available simply because a party disagrees with the Tribunal’s Decision, and it is not an opportunity for a party to reargue the case. As such, the respondent’s Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision is denied.

9In his submissions, the respondent also stated that following the hearing, he incurred a loss of rental income because the applicant failed to move out the second floor apartment in a timely manner, he discovered that the applicant had caused significant damage to the second floor apartment, and the applicant failed to pay rent for the main floor apartment. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over these issues. Furthermore, the respondent stated that he has raised these issues with the Landlord and Tenant Board, which appears to be the appropriate forum for dealing with them. I would note that in its final Decision the Tribunal ordered the applicant to move all her belongings and possessions out of the second floor apartment within one week of signing the rental agreement.

ORDER

10The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.