HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Ali Reza Salimi
Applicant
-and-
Toronto Community Housing Corporation
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Naomi Overend
Indexed as: Salimi v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Ali Reza Salimi, Applicant
Self-represented
Introduction
1On January 11, 2013, the Tribunal issued its Decision, 2013 HRTO 66, in which it found that the respondent had contravened the settlement of an earlier Application filed by the applicant. The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration concerning the remedial portion of that Decision.
THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
2The applicant submitted a Request for Reconsideration on the basis that factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of the Tribunal’s decisions.
DECISION
3Under 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.
4The 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.
5The 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.
6As 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.
7The applicant argues that the remedial order is insufficient, on the basis, in part, of information he states came to light during the attempts to mediate this Application. The parties to mediation are advised that information that is shared during mediation cannot be used against them in any subsequent hearing, should the mediation not fully resolve the issues in the Application. Accordingly, I cannot take into account such information, but must rely solely on the evidence and argument that was put before me at the hearing.
8I cannot take into account the email from the fellow resident and some of the details of his dental treatment that the applicant includes in his Request for Reconsideration, as that information was, likewise, not before me.
9The applicant also refers to incidents he states took place after the initial settlement, which he submits are clear violation of his human rights. The subject matter of his Application to this Tribunal was the contravention of the settlement. To the extent that subsequent events may have intensified the impact of the contravention, they are discussed in my Decision. However, I cannot make independent findings and grant remedies on alleged violations of the Code that were not properly before me.
10As noted above, reconsideration is neither an appeal nor an opportunity to repair any deficiencies in the party’s case. The applicant’s submissions appear to be an attempt to put arguments and present evidence that he chose not to make or submit at the hearing itself. The applicant has failed to provide compelling or extraordinary circumstances on which I might exercise my discretion to reconsider this Application.
order
11The Request for Reconsideration is, accordingly, dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 21st day of May, 2013.
“Signed by”
Naomi Overend
Vice-chair