Watson v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, 2014 HRTO 1786

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mark Watson

Applicant

-and-

Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman

Date: December 15, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1786

Indexed as: Watson v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Mark Watson, Applicant

Self-represented

1This Decision explains why the Tribunal will not reconsider its Decision in 2014 HRTO 1534 of October 15, 2014. That Decision dismissed the applicant’s Application on the ground that he had abandoned it.

2The Application alleged discrimination with respect to contracts because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). It had to do with a denial of benefits to the applicant by the respondent.

3In filing its Response the respondent requested that the Tribunal dismiss the Application on the grounds that the applicant had filed a civil action dealing with the same issue and requesting the same remedy as in the Application.

4The Tribunal wrote to the applicant on August 1, 2014, and directed him to file a Reply that included his response to the request to dismiss his Application. He was advised that if he did not respond by August 15, 2014, the Tribunal could decide that he had abandoned his Application.

5The applicant wrote to the Tribunal on August 15, 2014, and stated that after seeking legal advice he was requesting a 45-day extension in order to respond to the request. The Tribunal granted the extension on August 19, 2014, and directed him to file his response by September 29, 2014. He did not do so, and I determined that he had abandoned the Application.

6The applicant now requests reconsideration of that Decision. He bases his request on the ground that other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

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.

9The applicant argues that he suffers from a number of physical and mental disabilities that made it impossible to both understand and respond in a timely way to the issues he was directed to make submissions on. He says that he did his best to meet the Tribunal’s deadline. He sought the advice of the Human Rights Legal Support Centre (“HRLSC”) on the telephone, contacted his local legal clinic and the Law Society of Upper Canada in order to find counsel who could assist him.

10The applicant maintains that the HRLSC advised him to file his Reply but that he could not do this on his own. The task was too onerous because it takes him a long time to read and comprehend even small amounts of information. This slows down his ability to respond and meet deadlines.

11The applicant’s request is not supported by any medical documentation regarding his condition.

12More importantly, his assertion of an inability to respond in a timely manner is not at all supported by the timing of the applicant’s communications with the Tribunal.

13The applicant says that he received the Tribunal’s August 1 letter on August 11, 2014. Within four days he responded by email to the Registrar, indicating that he needed to request an extension of time to respond. His email undertakes to consult the HRLSC the next day and to indicate to the Tribunal how much time he would require. He did so the next day, asking for the 45-day extension, which was granted.

14The Decision to dismiss his Application was issued on October 15, 2014. Within nine days he sent a nine-page handwritten letter to the Registry asking for reconsideration of the Decision. On November 18, 2014, the Tribunal emailed him to indicate that he had to make this request in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and provide the request to the respondent. Again, within nine days he filed his request for reconsideration. It consists of three pages of submissions and a further 30 pages of attachments. He sets out in very clear terms why he thinks his request should be granted.

15The fact that the applicant responded in a timely and articulate manner in the above exchanges indicates to me that he could have met the 45-day deadline that he had initially asked for.

16The decision to grant reconsideration is discretionary. In the present circumstances there are no factors brought forward by the applicant in favour of reconsideration that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions. It would be inappropriate to exercise discretion in the applicant’s favour in these circumstances.

order

17The request for reconsideration is denied.