Maria Rots v. Fido Mobile, 2014 HRTO 986

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Maria Rots

Applicant

-and-

Fido Mobile

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw

Date: July 7, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 986

Indexed as: Rots v. Fido Mobile

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 4, 2013.

2On March 14, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application (“NOID”) on the basis that the Application appeared 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 April 14, 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 did not respond to the NOID and in its Decision, 2014 HRTO 709, the Tribunal deemed the applicant to have abandoned the Application and it was dismissed.

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 there is new evidence or facts that potentially could be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier. She does not address the abandonment issue.

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

(a) there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier […]

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 set out new facts or evidence that could possibly be determinative of the case, and has not claimed that there are any other reasons why a reconsideration would be justified. She has provided no reason why she did not respond to the NOID as directed.

12The applicant sets out only that the respondent has made her pay for two months of service and wants a free month of service, but has not provided any new evidence that would be determinative of any Code-related issues.

13I 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.

14The Request is denied.