Williams v. Independent Planning Group Inc., 2014 HRTO 522

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Stanley Williams

Applicant

-and-

Independent Planning Group Inc., Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada, and Ontario Securities Commission

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Ruth Carey

Date: April 11, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 522

Indexed as: Williams v. Independent Planning Group Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Stanley Williams, Applicant

Self-represented

1The applicant seeks reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision of August 19, 2013, Williams v. Independent Planning Group Inc., 2013 HRTO 1423, dismissing his Application following a summary hearing. The Tribunal held that there was no reasonable prospect of success with respect to the Application because the differential treatment complained of constitutes formal inequality but not substantive inequality so it is not discrimination pursuant to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure says:

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.

3The applicant’s Request for Reconsideration relies on all four of the reasons for reconsideration or factors described above.

4With respect to new facts or evidence the applicant filed with the Request for Reconsideration a new chart of calculations concerning his net worth and his personal projections of increases to his net worth that he believes would have occurred but for the respondents’ behaviour. This chart was not before the Tribunal during the summary hearing so I accept it constitutes new evidence. However it is not evidence that could not reasonably have been obtained prior to the hearing. As the Request for Review says: “I regret I did not undertake the computation of this analysis 31 months ago.”

5As a result I am not satisfied that there are new facts or evidence that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier.

6It is also not apparent that the data in the chart would have been determinative and produced a different outcome at the hearing as the applicant seems to be offering it in support of the proposition that his net worth was 41% and not 80% to 90%. Net worth is only one of the factors the respondents consider in making investment recommendations; but the cut off figure cited in their literature is 30% so whether the applicant’s was 41% or 80% to 90% does not change the legal analysis in the Decision.

7With respect to the allegation concerning the ground for reconsideration set out in paragraph b) of Rule 26.5, namely, that the applicant did not receive notice of the hearing, this ground does not apply here as the applicant clearly received notice of the hearing and participated in it.

8The applicant may have checked off this ground for reconsideration because one of his allegations is that the Decision rests on an issue not raised during the hearing – the issue being that discrimination involves substantive inequality and not mere formal inequality. It is true that this is not an issue identified in the Tribunal’s Case Assessment Direction directing the summary hearing be held; however, it is not true it was not raised at the hearing. The Independent Planning Group Inc. explicitly raised it as an issue during its submissions and the applicant was given an opportunity to respond. Therefore, I am not satisfied that the applicant was not given notice of the hearing or a chance to respond to the issues.

9The Request for Reconsideration does not refer the Tribunal to any jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure that the Decision is in conflict with. Therefore I am not satisfied that the factors in paragraph c) of Rule 26.5 apply here.

10With respect to paragraph d) of Rule 26.5, it is not clear from the Request for Reconsideration what factors the applicant is relying on as outweighing the public interest in finality of decisions as the Request does not identify any. Rather the request critiques the Decision and repeats arguments similar if not identical to those made at the summary hearing. Having reviewed all of the material filed I am not satisfied there are other factors that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

11Given all of the above, the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration shall be denied.

DECISION

12The Request for Reconsideration is denied.