HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Alexandre Papouchine
Applicant
-and-
Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: David Muir
Indexed as: Papouchine v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Alexandre Papouchine, Applicant
Self-represented
1On September 15, 2014 the Tribunal issued its Decision, 2014 HRTO 1366, denying the applicant’s request for leave to file the Application. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision.
2Under section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, 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.
3The 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 (Practice Direction on Reconsideration, January 2008 amended June 2008). Most relevant to this Decision is Rule 26 which states:
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.
4The 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.
5As 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. It may decide when reconsideration is advisable, both through the promulgation of rules setting out conditions for the exercise of its discretion, and through the application of its discretion on a case-by-case basis.
6I find that the applicant has not met the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration.
7The applicant argues that the Decision is unjust because I did not consider the submissions he made in a Request for Order During Proceedings (Request) filed by the applicant on August 27, 2014 and accordingly the Decision can not stand. The applicant argues that the Decision should be quashed and reconsidered on the basis of submissions filed by him on July 16, 2014 and in the Request.
8It is not clear why the applicant believes that the submissions in his Request were not considered because a plain reading of the Decision indicates that they were reviewed and considered. Indeed the only issue raised by the applicant in any of his submissions, including the July 16, 2014 submissions and the Request were argument about why he should not be required to seek leave of the Tribunal to file this Application. This question was addressed in the Decision and it was determined that the Tribunal appropriately determined that leave was required in the circumstances. (For a procedural history of this Application see the Decision).
9For these reasons the Request to Reconsider the Decision is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 28th day of October, 2014.
“signed by”
David Muir
Vice-chair