Sivanadian v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2014 HRTO 47

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ruban Sivanadian Applicant

-and-

The Law Society of Upper Canada, Kevin Fox and Kenneth Alexander Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: January 13, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 47 Indexed as: Sivanadian v. Law Society of Upper Canada

APPEARANCES

Ruban Sivanadian, Applicant Self-represented

The Law Society of Upper Canada, Respondent Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel

Kevin Fox, Respondent Self-represented

Kenneth Alexander, Respondent Self-represented

1This is an Application filed on January 7, 2013 under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to the provision of services because of race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin, disability, sex, family status, marital status, age and reprisal.

Background

2On January 22, 2013 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the grounds that the last alleged incident of discrimination occurred more than a year before the filing of the Application. The applicant was invited to provide written submissions regarding why the Application should not be dismissed and he filed his submissions on February 4, 2013. The Tribunal dismissed the Application for lack of jurisdiction due to the delay in filing the Application. See Sivanadian v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2013 HRTO 381. On March 26, 2013, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration (the “Request”). By Case Assessment Direction dated May 27, 2013, the Tribunal directed that a conference call would be scheduled to hear oral submissions regarding the applicant’s Request and, assuming the Request was successful, whether the Application has a reasonable prospect of success. The Tribunal held the conference call on October 8, 2013.

3For the reasons that follow, the Request is dismissed and it is unnecessary to address whether the Application has a reasonable prospect of success.

Request for Reconsideration Denied

4The circumstances in which Reconsideration may be granted are set out in Rule 26.5:

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.

5The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration begins with the following statements:

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.

6The applicant relies upon Rules 26.5(a), 26.5(c), and 26.5(d). The applicant’s submissions, however, did not address the requirements of any of these sub-rules. Rather, the applicant submitted, both in his written Request and during the hearing, that the Application was not untimely and that the Vice-chair who rendered the Decision made a number of errors in deciding to dismiss the Application. The applicant essentially repeated his submissions regarding the issue of delay that he made in response to the Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

7As is clearly enunciated in the Practice Direction on Reconsideration and in the Tribunal's jurisprudence, Reconsideration is not an appeal or evaluation of alleged errors in a Decision. See Latronico v. York Region District School Board, 2012 HRTO 637 and 4137566 Canada Ltd. v. Clements, 2011 HRTO 1008. Therefore, the applicant’s submissions that the Tribunal erred in its Decision do not establish grounds for Reconsideration.

8In my view, the applicant provided no reason to conclude that compelling and extraordinary circumstances exist that would call for Reconsideration of the Decision to dismiss the Application.

9The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.