Herman v. Canadian Mini-Warehouse Properties, 2014 HRTO 840

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Randall Herman

Applicant

-and-

Canadian Mini-Warehouse Properties and Sarda Ramankhasingh

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: June 11, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 840 Indexed as: Herman v. Canadian Mini-Warehouse Properties

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Randall Herman, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1The applicant seeks reconsideration of the Tribunal Decision, 2013 HRTO 1018 dismissing this Application on the basis that it was barred by s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.

DECISION

2Under 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.

3The Tribunal has issued Rules of Procedure, which govern 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 states in part:

26.1 Any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within (thirty) 30 days of 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.

4The applicant filed his Request for Reconsideration on May 6, 2014. The Decision he wishes to reconsider was released on June 6, 2013, exactly 11 months prior to the Request for Reconsideration. Rule 26.1 states that a party may request reconsideration within 30 days of the date of a final decision.

5The applicant has provided no explanation for why he did not file a timely request. The applicant does note that he did not receive certain correspondence from the Tribunal dating from June 2013 until February 27, 2014. Even if that correspondence included the Decision, which the applicant does not assert, he provides no explanation for why he did not file his Request for Reconsideration within 30 days of February 27, 2014. On this basis alone, the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration must fail.

6Moreover, I find that the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration fails to set out any basis for review of the Decision of the Tribunal. In the earlier Decision, the Tribunal found the applicant had commenced a civil proceeding concerning the same factual allegations and requesting similar remedies for identical sums of money. The applicant does not make any submissions concerning the reason for the dismissal in his Request, instead imploring the Tribunal to “stop anti-Semitism” now.

7The Accordingly, the Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.