Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Grant Hutchinson
Applicant
-and-
Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott
Indexed as: Hutchinson v. Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Grant Hutchinson, Applicant
Self-represented
Introduction
1This Application, filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleges discrimination with respect to services because of disability.
2On November 6, 2012, the respondent filed a Request for Summary Hearing seeking a dismissal of the Application on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success.
3By Interim Decision dated May 13, 2013 (2013 HRTO 793), I denied the respondent’s request to dismiss the allegations against it. I held it could not be determined that they had no reasonable prospect of success.
4On November 12, 2013, the respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking a dismissal of the Application on the basis that the applicant’s conduct constituted an abuse of the Tribunal’s process.
5By Case Assessment Direction dated January 9, 2014, I issued specific directions to the applicant concerning his communications with the respondent and the Tribunal. These directions were in place until such time as the hearing was completed and a decision rendered by the Tribunal, subject to any further order by the Tribunal. I held I would not rule on the respondent’s Request to Dismiss the Application as an abuse of process as I wanted to give the applicant the opportunity to abide by clear directions concerning his communications. I held further that the respondent could renew its Request in the event the applicant failed to comply with the communication directions.
6On January 14, 2014, the respondent asked the Tribunal to rule on its request to dismiss the Application on the basis of abuse of process because of the applicant’s failure to comply with my communication directions.
7By Case Assessment Direction dated March 21, 2014, I directed a summary hearing on the respondent’s Request to Dismiss the Application on the basis of abuse of process.
8On June 17, 2014, a Notice of Summary Hearing was sent to the parties scheduling the hearing for August 21, 2014, by teleconference. The summary hearing date was peremptory on the applicant because of his failure to provide his availability to the Tribunal to attend the hearing.
9The applicant attended the summary hearing on August 21, 2014. He requested an adjournment, which was denied. The applicant indicated his intention to terminate the call. I advised the applicant that if he did so, his Application would be dismissed as abandoned. The applicant ended the call.
10By decision dated August 26, 2014 (2014 HRTO 1261), (the “Decision”), I dismissed the Application on the basis that it had been abandoned by the applicant. A full chronology in this matter is set out in the Decision.
11On September 25, 2014, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration.
test for reconsideration
12Under 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 the 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.
13The Tribunal has issued Rules governing such requests as well as a Practice Direction to provide guidance to the community on the Tribunal’s exercise of its reconsideration powers. Rule 26 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states:
26.1 Any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within 30 days from 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.
14The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration states Reconsideration is a discretionary remedy: that there is no right to have a decision reconsidered by the Tribunal. It affirms that Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to change the way it presented its case. The Practice Direction gives examples of situations where the Tribunal has refused Requests for Reconsideration, including where a party raises new arguments that were not made, but could have been made, at the hearing, or where a party