HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Althea Francis Applicant
-and-
Precision Property Management Inc. and Edgardo Cubias Respondents
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott Date: March 17, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 370 Indexed as: Francis v. Precision Property Management Inc.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Althea Francis, Applicant Self-represented
Introduction
1This Application was filed on May 16, 2013 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleges that she was discriminated against in housing because of disability, receipt of social assistance, and reprisal.
2By Case Assessment Direction dated July 15, 2013 (the “CAD”), the Tribunal on its own initiative determined that a summary hearing would be held to hear the parties’ submissions on whether the Application has no reasonable prospect of success. The summary hearing was held by teleconference on October 18, 2013.
3By decision dated December 12, 2013, 2013 HRTO 2056, the Tribunal dismissed the Application as having no reasonable prospect of success for several reasons. One, the applicant’s complaints involved decisions by the Board of Directors of the Lom Nova Co-op (the “Co-op”) and the general functioning of the Board of Directors. Because neither the Co-op nor the Board of Directors were parties to the Application, the Application had no reasonable prospect of success. Two, although the applicant made general complaints about the respondent Precision Property Management Inc. (“Precision”), she failed to link those complaints with a prohibited ground of discrimination. The complaint against Precision was dismissed on that basis.
4On February 14, 2014, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration. In the Request for Reconsideration, the applicant continued to make complaints about the Board of Directors. She also complained about Precision and its role relating to membership in the Co-op, the distribution of a survey, and membership on the Board of Directors. The applicant made further complaints against Precision and the Property Coordinator of Precision about events that occurred after the Application was filed. These complaints relate primarily to the alleged unprofessional conduct of the Property Coordinator regarding a fire inspection, the availability of Rent Geared to Income Applications, and a request for the board room. None of these complaints were linked to the applicant and a prohibited ground of discrimination.
decision
5The Request for Reconsideration is denied.
analysis
6Under 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.
7The 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.
8The 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.
9In the Request for Reconsideration, the applicant continues to make complaints against the Board of Directors. The Tribunal has already determined that the complaints against the Board of Directors have no reasonable prospect of success because the Board of Directors is not a party to the Application.
10In the Request for Reconsideration, the applicant has made further complaints against Precision, but has failed to link those complaints to the applicant and a prohibited ground of discrimination. The fact that the applicant may have a disability is not sufficient, on its own, to demonstrate that the Application should proceed absent some link between the applicant’s disability and the events complained about. In this case, there is no link between the alleged unprofessional conduct of the Property Coordinator of Precision and the applicant’s disability.
11The Request for Reconsideration is essentially an attempt by the applicant to re-argue matters that were already presented or argued at the summary hearing. 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
12The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 17th day of March, 2014.
“signed by”
Jennifer Scott Vice-chair```