Deveaux v. Doral Holdings Limited, 2013 HRTO 967

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Matthew Deveaux

Applicant

-and-

Doral Holdings Limited and Braidy Parker

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: May 31, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 967

Indexed as: Deveaux v. Doral Holdings Limited

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Matthew Deveaux, Applicant ) Self-represented

Doral Holdings Limited and Brady Parker, )

Respondents ) Daniel Wong, Counsel

1The applicant has filed a Request to Reconsider Decision 2013 HRTO 313 (“the Decision”) which is dated February 25, 2013. The Decision dismissed the Application when the applicant failed to appear at the February 22, 2013 telephone conference call hearing scheduled to deal with the Application. The Request to Reconsider was delivered to the Tribunal on April 22, 2013. The respondents were directed to file submissions regarding the applicant's Request for Reconsideration. The respondents filed submissions on May 9, 2013.

Background

2The Application was filed on May 8, 2012. After reviewing the Application, the Tribunal determined that a summary hearing should be held by telephone conference call to determine if the Application should be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success. A telephone conference call hearing on February 22, 2013, at 1:30 p.m. was scheduled for that purpose.

3The respondents were present at the scheduled time. The applicant was not present. The Vice-chair waited until 2:00 p.m. but the applicant still had not appeared. As noted in the Decision, the Vice-chair was satisfied that the applicant had received notice of the hearing. He determined that the applicant had abandoned the Application, and it was dismissed on that basis.

4In the Request for Reconsideration, the applicant indicates that he asked that the Decision be reconsidered because he was allegedly threatened at the mall operated by the respondents. As the respondents note this was also an allegation alleged by the applicant at the time of the original Application.

5The Request for Reconsideration does not provide any explanation for the applicant’s failure to participate in the telephone conference call hearing on February 22, 2013.

DECISION

6Under 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.

7Rule 26 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure deals with requests for reconsiderations:

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.

8In this case, the Request for Reconsideration was sent more than 30 days after the date of the Decision. More significantly, the Request for Reconsideration provides no explanation at all for the applicant’s failure to participate in the telephone conference call hearing. That hearing was scheduled to allow the applicant to explain his allegations against the respondents so that the Tribunal could determine whether to continue to process the Application. The applicant does not allege that he was unaware of the hearing or did not receive notice of the hearing.

9The Application was dismissed as abandoned because the applicant was not present for the telephone conference call hearing. The Request for Reconsideration provides no reason that would allow the Tribunal to reconsider the Decision to dismiss the Application following the applicant’s failure to be present for the hearing. For this reason the Request for Reconsideration is denied.