Thiyagarajah v. Ontario (Transportation), 2014 HRTO 878

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Baherathan Thiyagarajah

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Transportation

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume

Date: June 16, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 878

Indexed as: Thiyagarajah v. Ontario (Transportation)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Baherathan Thiyagarajah, Applicant

Self-represented

1The applicant seeks reconsideration of the Decision, 2013 HRTO 1692, dismissing her Application.

2For the reasons set out below, I find that the applicant has not established the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (“Rules”) that would cause me to reconsider my Decision.

The Decision being challenged

3The Application was dismissed following a summary hearing during which the parties made oral submissions by teleconference. In the Decision, I found that at the root of this Application is the fact that the applicant’s driver’s licence has been suspended for failure to provide the respondent with information about the applicant’s medical status. There was nothing the applicant could point to that would tie that decision to the prohibited grounds he has alleged in the Application apart from his own speculation. I found that there is no reasonable prospect that the applicant could succeed on the basis that there was no evidence to support the claim that the actions of the respondent were in any way connected to a prohibited ground under the Code.

Applicable Principles

4In Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34, the Tribunal stated that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case. Once the Tribunal has made a decision in a case, parties are entitled to treat the matter as closed, subject to limited exceptions.

5The circumstances in which a Request for Reconsideration may be granted are set out in Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules:

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.

THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

6In the Request for Reconsideration, the applicant repeats the same arguments which were made during the summary hearing. The applicant disagrees with my interpretation of the evidence and seeks to have the Decision set aside on that basis.

Analysis

7I deny the Request for Reconsideration because the applicant has failed to establish the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26.5 that might lead to reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision.