Pytka v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2014 HRTO 881

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Marilyn Pytka

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Attorney General of Ontario

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume

Date: June 16, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 881

Indexed as: Pytka v. Ontario (Attorney General)

Written Submissions

Marilyn Pytka, Applicant

Yavar Hameed, Counsel

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Attorney General of Ontario, Respondent

Darrell Kloeze, Counsel

1The applicant seeks reconsideration of the Decision, 2013 HRTO 1235, 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 Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) dated November 22, 2012 on the basis that the Application appeared to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Written submissions were sought from the parties. I dismissed the Application on the basis that the allegations relate to the applicant’s interactions with judges during the course of litigation before the Ontario Courts.

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

6The applicant is seeking reconsideration on the basis that my Decision is in conflict with well established Tribunal jurisprudence and that the reconsideration the involves a matter of general or public importance. The applicant also argues that other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

7In the Request for Reconsideration, the applicant raises the same arguments which were before me prior to determining the original decision. Fundamentally, the applicant disagrees with my characterization of her allegations.

8The applicant argues that the court’s administration service may constitute a service under the Code separate and apart from any judicial decision-making. I do not disagree with this proposition. However, I found that the applicant’s allegations were not related to court administration services but to the discretionary decision-making of the judges who presided at various stages in the litigation involving the applicant.

9The applicant argues that my decision is in conflict with decisions such as Zaki v. Ontario (Community and Society Services), 2009 HRTO 1595 (“Zaki”) and Baird v. WSIAT, 2009 HRTO 99 (“Baird”). Those decisions are cited in the original decision in support of my finding that decisions of statutory decision-makers do not constitute a service under the Code. Having characterized the applicant’s allegations as a challenge to judicial decision-making, the original decision is not in conflict with Zaki or Baird.

10The arguments raised by the applicant, including those which relate to the Office of the Accessibility Coordinator, were all before me when the original decision was rendered. As the respondent points out, it appears from the Application that the request for an adjournment was presented to the review panel of the Court of Appeal, which heard the applicant’s submissions and then confirmed the Court’s decision of February 15, 2011 dismissing the applicant’s appeal.

11The respondent’s position is that the reconsideration request is an attempt to re-argue the issues which were originally before me. The respondent also argues that it is evident on the face of my decision the importance I placed on the applicant’s vulnerability and the access to justice issues which she was attempting to advance before this Tribunal. I agree with both of those submissions.

Analysis

12I 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.