HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Elizabeth Efthymiadis
Applicant
-and-
Minto Properties Inc. and G4S Secure Solutions (Canada) Ltd.
Respondents
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott
Indexed as: Efthymiadis v. Minto Properties Inc.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Elizabeth Efthymiadis, 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 housing because of race, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin and age.
2By Case Assessment Direction dated May 16, 2014, the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be held to determine whether the Application should be dismissed, in whole or in part, on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that it will succeed. The Case Assessment Direction alerted the applicant to the fact that there was an issue as to whether her allegations could amount to a Code violation and affirmed the Tribunal does not have the general power to deal with allegations of unfairness.
3By decision dated September 5, 2014, 2014 HRT0 1305, (the “Decision”), the Tribunal dismissed the Application because it had no reasonable prospect of success.
4On October 2, 2014, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration on the basis that the Decision was in conflict with established case law, the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance, and other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.
test for reconsideration
5Under 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.
6The 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.
7The 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 parties repeat arguments that were made at a hearing or in written submissions.
decision
8In the Request for Reconsideration, the applicant states the Decision ignores the fact that racial discrimination is often the result of conscious or unconscious beliefs, biases or prejudice towards persons of different ethnic origins. While I agree with this general statement concerning the way in which racial discrimination is manifested, there must be facts alleged in the Application to support the applicant’s claim that it was manifested in her case.
9The applicant asserts the comment that she “communicates with people below the earth” was discriminatory. There are no facts alleged in the Application to support this claim other than the statement itself. While some comments on their face link a person’s race (for example, stereotypes attributed to a specific race), this comment does not. It was for this reason that I held the Application had no reasonable prospect of success.
10The applicant states I ignored her evidence at the summary hearing. There was no evidence from the applicant at the summary hearing other than her submissions on the general principles of racial discrimination and why she believed the comment contravened the Code. General principles of discrimination do not provide the factual underpinning necessary to sustain a complaint. There must be facts alleged that support the applicant’s interpretation that the comment was discriminatory. She failed to assert any facts – direct or circumstantial – to support her interpretation of the comment.
11The applicant states further that I ignored the inconsistencies between the Responses filed by the respondents. The applicant is correct that I did not reconcile any inconsistencies in the Responses. This was because I accepted the applicant’s version of the events as true for the purposes of the summary hearing.
12Finally, the applicant submits allowing the Application to proceed will bring out the true version of the events. While I appreciate the applicant’s desire to have the Application heard, it cannot proceed if it has no reasonable prospect of success. It is not fair to the parties to continue to process an Application if the allegation cannot amount to a Code violation.
13The Request for Reconsideration is essentially an attempt by the applicant to re-argue matters that were already presented or argued at the hearing or to appeal the Decision. In my view, the applicant has provided no reason to conclude that compelling and extraordinary circumstances exist that outweigh the public interest in finality of decisions. The Request for Reconsideration is denied on that basis.
ORDER
14The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 30th day of October, 2014.
“Signed by”
Jennifer Scott
Vice-chair