Papouchine v. Staples Canada, 2013 HRTO 821

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Alexandre Papouchine Applicant

-and-

Staples Canada Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: May 15, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 821 Indexed as: Papouchine v. Staples Cananda

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Alexandre Papouchine, Applicant Self-represented

Introduction

1On January 4, 2013, the Tribunal issued its Decision, 2013 HRTO 18, dismissing the Application on the basis that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction over this Application. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision.

2In the Decision under reconsideration, I found that the applicant had failed to establish that the conduct at issue was related to a ground under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

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

a. There are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier; and

b. The Decision is in conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance.

DECISION

4Under 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.

5The Tribunal has issued Rules of Procedure, which govern 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 amended June 2008). Rule 26 states in part:

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.

6The 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.

7As 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.

8I find that the applicant has not met the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration. With respect to the first ground set out in his Request, the applicant has not set out new facts or evidence that could possibly be determinative of the case

9With respect to the second criteria cited – that the decision is in conflict with established case law or Tribunal proceedure – the applicant states that the December 10, 2012 Notice of Intent to Dismiss ("NOID") did not make it clear to him that the Tribunal was asking him for submissions concerning the link between the grounds and the allegations of unfairness cited in his Application.

10The relevant portion of the NOID states:

It appears the Application is outside the HRTO's jurisdiction because:

• a review of the Application and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination fails to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondent(s).

11In his submissions in response to the NOID, dated December 23, 2012, the applicant chose to focus on whether the respondent was providing a service, good or facility to him, rather than explaining why what he was alleging was discriminatory and, therefore, within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

12It is important to understand that three months before the applicant filed these submissions, this Tribunal had dismissed another of his applications on the very basis that he had failed to establish a link between the conduct alleged and the grounds cited: Papouchine v. Audi Canada, 2012 HRTO 1860. Similar to this case, the applicant alleged failure to receive a service on the basis that he was not a member of the royal family and on the basis of his ancestry, ethnic origin and place of origin.

13The applicant states that the Tribunal committed a "technical error" in reaching its Decision under reconsideration. He has, however, failed to make submissions that that "technical error" resulted in an outcome that was unfair to him. Specifically, he has failed to argue that there was, in fact, a link between the grounds listed in his Application and the alleged unfairness.

14In 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.