Smith v. The Rover’s Rest, 2013 HRTO 986

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Deborah Smith Applicant

-and-

The Rover’s Rest and Bruce Dorman Respondents

Reconsideration Decision

Adjudicator: David A. Wright Date: June 3, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 986 Indexed as: Smith v. The Rover’s Rest

Written Submissions

The Rover’s Rest and Bruce Dorman, Respondents

Bruce Dorman, Representative

1The respondents request reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision allowing this Application, 2013 HRTO 700. They rely upon Rule 26.5 (a) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, which reads as follows:

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…

2Reconsideration is not an appeal, and is granted only in exceptional cases. As the Tribunal stated in Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board et al., 2008 HRTO 34, at para. 56:

As is evident from the Rules and made explicit in Practice Direction #4, reconsideration is not an appeal. It is not an opportunity to re-argue a case. Once the parties to a case have had the opportunity to present their evidence and arguments to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal has made a decision disposing of the issues, parties are entitled to treat the matter as closed, subject to limited exceptions.

3The respondents take issue with the fact that the Human Rights Legal Support Centre (“HRLSC”) provided support to the applicant and did not provide them with representation. They suggest that this is “out of line” since the Tribunal’s mandate is to provide fair and accessible dispute resolution. The HRLSC is a separate agency established pursuant to Part IV.1 of the Code, and the nature of its services do not form a ground for reconsidering the Application or relate to the Tribunal’s process.

4In the Request for Reconsideration, the respondents raise various issues about the applicant’s background and present circumstances and suggest that the adjudicator was incorrect in his conclusions about the facts. The new alleged facts are all or almost all irrelevant and would not be admitted. The respondents have cited no evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case, and also no reason that this evidence could not reasonably have been obtained earlier, requirements for the application of Rule 26.5(a).

5Reconsideration is not granted because of disagreement with the adjudicator’s conclusions, nor because a party wishes to call further evidence it decided not to call earlier.

6The Request for Reconsideration is therefore dismissed.