Amin v. Blaisdale Montessori School, 2014 HRTO 247

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mahamud Amin

Applicant

-and-

Blaisdale Montessori School and Heather Wilson

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott

Date: February 21, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 247

Indexed as: Amin v. Blaisdale Montessori School

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination with respect to services because of creed.

2By Notice of Confirmation of Hearing dated June 25, 2012, the matter was set down for hearing on February 14 and 15, 2013. The Notice of Confirmation of Hearing directed the parties to comply with Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure by exchanging with one another and filing with the Tribunal the documents they intend to rely upon at the hearing, a list of their witnesses and a summary of their witnesses' anticipated evidence by no later than December 31, 2012.

3The respondents provided their hearing documents on December 10, 2012. The applicant failed to provide his hearing documents by December 31, 2012.

4In a January 14, 2013 Case Assessment Direction (the "CAD"), the Tribunal directed the applicant to provide his required hearing materials by January 24, 2013.

5On January 17, 2013, the applicant asked for an adjournment of the hearing. The applicant stated he was traveling with his mother from the last week in January until the first week in March 2013 and could not attend the hearing.

6By Interim Decision dated January 22, 2013, 2013 HRTO 108, the Tribunal denied the applicant's adjournment request. The Tribunal confirmed the hearing would proceed on February 14, 2013. The Tribunal repeated its direction to the applicant that he must file his pre-hearing documents. The Interim Decision was sent to the applicant by regular mail and electronically. The applicant did not file his pre-hearing documents as required and did not contact the Tribunal to explain why.

7On January 29, 2013, the respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings ("RFOP") asking the Tribunal to dismiss the Application if the pre-hearing documents were not filed by February 8, 2013. The respondents delivered the RFOP to the applicant electronically. The applicant did not respond to the RFOP by February 12, 2013, the date he was required to respond under Rule 19.6 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

8The applicant did not contact the Tribunal to advise the reason for his non-compliance with the direction set out in the CAD and the Interim Decision. He did not respond to the RFOP. As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the Application as abandoned by decision dated February 12, 2013, 2013 HRTO 252.

9On November 29, 2013, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration. In support of the Request for Reconsideration, the applicant filed a copy of his airline ticket indicating that he left Toronto to travel to Dubai on February 2, 2013 and returned to Toronto on April 29, 2013. The airline ticket was issued on January 21, 2013.

Decision

10The Request for Reconsideration is denied.

The Reconsideration Test

11Under 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.

12The 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.

13The Tribunal's Practice Direction on Reconsideration begins with the following statements:

Decisions of the HRTO are final and are not subject to appeal. However, parties may request that the HRTO reconsider a final decision it has made. Reconsideration is a discretionary remedy; there is no right to have a decision reconsidered by the HRTO. Generally, the HRTO 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.

ANALYSIS

14In the Request for Reconsideration, the applicant states he was outside of the country and did not know what to do until he consulted with a lawyer. In the Request for Reconsideration, the applicant does not explain:

• Why he failed to file his pre-hearing documents by December 31, 2012, while he was still in the country;
• Why he failed to comply with the Tribunal's direction to file his pre-hearing materials by January 24, 2013, while he was still in the country;
• The reason why he booked a trip for the same period of time that the hearing was scheduled, after having received the Notice of Hearing; and
• Any extraordinary circumstances that necessitated the trip during the period of time that the hearing was set.

15Under the Tribunal's Rules of Procedures, a party must file a Request for Reconsideration within 30 days from the date of the decision. The decision dismissing the Application was released on February 12, 2013. The applicant did not file the Request for Reconsideration until November 29, 2013. The applicant returned to Toronto on April 29, 2013 and waited another seven months to file his Request for Reconsideration.

16I find the applicant has not met the burden of establishing the criteria justifying Reconsideration. The applicant has throughout this proceeding failed to comply with his obligations under the Notice of Hearing, the Tribunal's direction in the CAD and the Rules of Procedure. The applicant has provided no exceptional circumstances that outweigh the importance of finality in the Tribunal's decisions, including the decision in this case dismissing the Application as abandoned. In these circumstances, the Request for Reconsideration is denied.

ORDER

17The Request for Reconsideration is denied.