C.U. v. Blencowe, 2014 HRTO 732

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

C.U.

Applicant

-and-

Jeremy Blencowe

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: May 22, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 732

Indexed as: C.U. v. Blencowe

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Jeremy Blencowe, Respondent

Self-represented

1The respondent requests Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision in C.U. v. Blencowe, 2013 HRTO 1667, dated October 3, 2013. In that Decision, the Tribunal found that the respondent committed serious and persistent acts of sexual harassment against the applicant and, in doing so, created a poisoned work environment for her, in breach of sections 5(1) and 7(2) of Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, and ordered the respondent to pay damages to compensate her for the breach of her rights

2The 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.

3The 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.

4The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration (the “Request”) on November 12, 2013, but did not specify on which of the circumstances set out in Rule 26.5 he was relying. In the cover letter to the Request, the respondent stated that he could not afford to pay the award, that he was in bankruptcy and that he struggles to provide for his family.

5In a Case Assessment Direction dated January 31, 2014, I stated that in my view, the respondent’s submissions were irrelevant to the criteria for granting Reconsideration with the exception of his assertion that he is “currently in bankruptcy”. The respondent did not indicate what he meant by “in bankruptcy”, but if the respondent is bankrupt pursuant to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3 (the “BIA”), this Application may have been stayed pursuant to section 69 of the BIA. The bankruptcy of the respondent could amount to a factor that outweighs the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions, pursuant to Rule 26.5(d). The Tribunal therefore directed the respondent to clarify his circumstances as follows:

Within 14 days of the date of this Case Assessment Direction, the respondent shall indicate whether (and if so, when) he has filed for bankruptcy under the BIA and file with the Tribunal any and all documents in his possession related to any such bankruptcy proceedings, e.g., a Notice of Intention to Make a Proposal under the BIA.

The Tribunal may make further directions following receipt of the respondent’s submissions.

6The respondent responded by e-mail on February 19, 2014, and stated that his bankruptcy came into effect on February 26, 2013, and provided the name and contact information of his bankruptcy trustee. The respondent, however, did not provide any documentation regarding any bankruptcy proceedings in which he was involved, as the Tribunal directed him to in the Case Assessment Direction of January 31, 2014. In a Case Assessment direction dated March 20, 2014, the Tribunal explained that the onus is on him to provide the documentation to support his Request and that the Tribunal does not gather information or evidence. Accordingly, the Tribunal gave the applicant the following direction:

1. Within seven days of the date of this Case Assessment Direction, the respondent shall provide his trustee in bankruptcy a copy of this Case Assessment Direction, the Case Assessment Direction of January 31, 2014 and the Decision in this matter, C.U. v. Blencowe, 2013 HRTO 1667, which are included along with this Case Assessment Direction, to his trustee in bankruptcy; and

2. Within 14 days of the date of this Case Assessment Direction, the respondent shall file with the Tribunal, or have his trustee in bankruptcy file with the Tribunal, documents related to bankruptcy proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3 (the “BIA”) that would support the respondent’s submission that he is bankrupt and that the proceedings before this Tribunal should be stayed pursuant to the BIA, failing which the Tribunal may dismiss the respondent’s Request for Reconsideration.

7As of the date of this Reconsideration Decision, the respondent has not complied with the Tribunal’s directions to provide documents supporting his assertion that he is bankrupt. The respondent has provided no basis for the Tribunal to exercise its discretion to reconsider its Decision in this matter.

8The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.