HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Arden Dottin
Applicant
-and-
Value Village (Savers USA- Washington DC)
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Dottin v. Value Village (Savers-USA Washington DC)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Arden Dottin, Applicant
Self-represented
1On August 11, 2014 the Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, 2014 HRTO 1203 dismissing the Application. The applicant has requested that the Tribunal reconsider its Decision. The respondents have not been directed to file a response to the applicant’s Reconsideration request.
2The Decision dismissed the Application as abandoned after the applicant left the hearing room. I also found that the applicant’s conduct amounted to an abuse of process.
3In the Request for reconsideration the applicant makes a lot of submissions with respect to the merits of the Application which are irrelevant to whether the Decision should be reconsidered.
4The applicant explains that he did not feel comfortable with me continuing to be chairing the hearing because of the recording issue. He states that he attempted to contact the ombudsman during the hearing because he did not feel that it was fair. The applicant states that my decision is in conflict with established case-law.
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 (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.
7As 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.
8I find that the applicant has not met the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration and that the Decision is not in conflict with any established case-law. The Tribunal will routinely dismiss applications as abandoned when an applicant leaves mid-hearing. See Hutchinson v. Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology, 2014 HRTO 1261 reconsideration denied and 2014 HRTO 1568; and Rizzo v. Guelph (City), 2014 HRTO 1737.
9The Tribunal is committed to a fair, just and expeditious resolution of matters before it. In this case, the Tribunal had set aside two days of hearing time to determine this Application. The applicant chose to leave the hearing room because he did not feel comfortable with me and some of the rulings that I made during the course of the hearing. I warned the applicant repeatedly before he left the hearing room that the Application could not proceed in his absence and that it would be dismissed as abandoned.
10During most hearings the Tribunal will make a number of decisions, usually procedural in nature with which a party may not agree. However, the expectation is that the parties will respect the decisions of the Tribunal and that the hearing will continue. To permit parties to leave a hearing without any consequences would result in the Tribunal losing control over the hearing process.
11In this case, the applicant chose to leave the hearing room and he must accept the consequences which is the resulting dismissal of the Application. There is simply no reasonable basis proposed by the applicant which could justify the reconsideration of this Decision.
Order
12I find that the applicant has not met the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration. The Request to reconsider the Decision is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 8th day of December, 2014.
“signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair