Maria Rots v. Assessment and Referral Centre, 2014 HRTO 983

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Maria Rots

Applicant

-and-

Assessment and Referral Centre

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw

Date: July 7, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 983

Indexed as: Rots v. Assessment and Referral Centre

Introduction

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), on November 13, 2013.

2On February 27, 2014 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application ("NOID") on the basis that the Application appears to be outside the Tribunal's power to decide. The applicant was directed to respond to the issues raised in the NOID by no later than March 31, 2014. The NOID advised the applicant that failure to respond to the NOID may be considered an abandonment of the Application and it might be dismissed for that reason.

3The applicant responded to the NOID on March 20, 2014 with what she called additional evidence and in its Decision, 2014 HRTO 698, the Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations were outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction to decide as there was no link to a Code ground.

4On June 3, 2014, the applicant requested a reconsideration of that Decision.

THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

5In her Request for Reconsideration the applicant cites as grounds that she was entitled to receive notice and through no fault of her own did not. She does not address the fact that she must have received notice because she provided additional evidence in response to the NOID.

decision

6Under 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.

7The 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: Practice Direction on Reconsideration, January 2008, amended March 2010. 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

(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

8The 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.

9As is evident from the above, reconsideration is a discretionary remedy. That is, while the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to reopen and reconsider its own decisions, it is not obliged to do so.

10The Tribunal also has stated in Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34, that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case. Once the parties to an application have had the opportunity to present their evidence and arguments to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal has made a decision disposing of the issues, parties are entitled to treat the matter as closed, subject to limited exceptions.

11I find that the applicant has not met the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration. The applicant has not provided any reason why she did not get notice of the proceeding, and in fact, I am satisfied she did get notice following which she provided additional evidence on March 20, 2014 that was considered by the Tribunal in reaching its decision. She has not claimed that there are any other reasons why reconsideration would be justified.

12I find that the applicant has not established the existence of any criteria in Rule 26 that would lead to reconsideration of the Tribunal's Decision.

13The Request is denied.