Berc Yaziciyan v. Centennial College - Progress Campus, 2014 HRTO 132

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Berc Yaziciyan Applicant

-and-

Centennial College - Progress Campus and Micol Kates and Janet Haist and Emily Donville and Paul Kinnis Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman Date: January 29, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 132 Indexed as: Yaziciyan v. Centennial College – Progress Campus

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Berc Yaziciyan, Applicant

Self-represented

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to services because of age.

2In Decision 2013 HRTO 1890 I dismissed the Application as having no reasonable prospect of success. This decision was taken after a summary hearing in which the applicant was asked to indicate what evidence he would adduce to show that he had been discriminated against on the basis of age. He indicated that he had no proof and that his allegations were not capable of being proven, as the respondents would be careful not to leave any trace of evidence of discrimination, but that the allegations were nonetheless true. As the applicant could not point to evidence that he would rely upon at a hearing, as opposed to his beliefs, the Application was dismissed.

3The applicant requests reconsideration of that Decision. The Decision was issued on November 13, 2013. On December 13, 2013 the applicant wrote to the Tribunal and indicated that he disagreed with the Decision. The Tribunal wrote back to him and advised him that if he wished to request a reconsideration he needed to follow the Tribunal’s process and file his request using the Tribunal’s proper form (Form 20), which was to be served on the respondents. Under the Tribunal’s Rule 26 a request for reconsideration must be filed within 30 days of the date of a decision.

4The applicant then provided some of the respondents and the Tribunal with a Form 20 on January 6, 2014. The remaining respondents were provided with the Form 20 on January 13 and 14.

5Of the four grounds for requesting a reconsideration that are set out on Form 20, the applicant indicated he was seeking reconsideration because he had not received notice of the proceeding which resulted in the Decision he was challenging. Most of the narrative on the Form 20 then goes on to explain that he was filing the Form 20 late because he had not received the Decision until November 26, 2013. The narrative then explains that he contacted the Tribunal and was told by a Tribunal employee on December 9, 2013 that he had to file a Form 20. He explains that he failed to do so until later because he was seeking advice about what to write on the form.

6The only part of the Form 20 that addresses the applicant’s concerns with the Decision reads as follows:

I received November 13-2013 dated letter of decision very late. I never been informed that I have only 30 days to apply for reconsideration. I am not agree with this decision of HRTO because strictly asked to Proof. This is not a invoice, bill, receipt and/or financial matter case. This is a personal/civil case and nothing is provable. HRTO is asking something imposible to do. Nobody can proof this kind of case, but there is wittnesses. [sic]

7Section 45.7 of the Code provides the Tribunal with authority to reconsider its decisions. Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provides that 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;

(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;

(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 and orders.

8The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration states the following:

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.

9Leaving aside the question of why the applicant did not file his request for reconsideration earlier, 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. In this request the applicant is repeating arguments he made orally in the course of the summary hearing.

10A request for reconsideration is not an opportunity to restate or re-argue a position already advanced and considered. In this regard, the applicant is not making any arguments about the facts and issues in this Application that he had not already made at the hearing.

order

11The request for reconsideration is denied.