Papouchine v. Named Respondents, 2015 HRTO 107

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Alexandre Papouchine

Applicant

-and-

Named Respondents

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume

Date: January 23, 2015

2014-17260-I, 2014-17261-I, 2014-17262-I, 2014-17263-I ,

2014-17134-I

Citation: 2015 HRTO 107

Indexed as: Papouchine v. Named Respondents

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Alexandre Papouchine, Applicant

Self-represented

1The applicant seeks reconsideration of the Decision, 2014 HRTO 1148, denying leave to proceed with these 9 Applications.

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

3In an earlier Decision (2014 HRTO 588) I directed the applicant to explain why he believed these Applications were not intended to vex or harass the named respondents and how they represented a legitimate assertion of his Code rights. His submissions resulted in the Decision which he is now asking me to reconsider.

4In the Decision I found that the applicant’s submissions did not address my earlier direction in any meaningful way. Instead of explaining why the proposed Applications are a legitimate effort to vindicate his Code rights the applicant made legal arguments attacking the summary hearing process and my Decision. The applicant did not provide reasons why the Tribunal might conclude that these particular Applications should proceed.

Applicable Principles relating to reconsideration

5In 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.

6The 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.

Analysis of the ReQuest for Reconsideration

7In his Request for Reconsideration, the applicant states that the Tribunal should reconsider its decision on the basis that it is incorrect. The applicant disagrees with my interpretation of the Tribunal’s Rules and the Code. Fundamentally the applicant disagrees with my Decision. As I have indicated above, the Tribunal’s reconsideration power is discretionary and does not represent an opportunity for the applicant to reargue his case.

8The applicant accuses me of “tampering with evidence” on the basis that I “removed” from my Decision many of the applicant’s arguments. He has also asked me to recuse myself for reasonable apprehension of bias. There is no basis for recusal or the applicant’s allegations of “tampering with evidence”. The applicant’s arguments are for the most part, a string of incomprehensible statements and quotations from various decisions, none of which bear on the issues before me. The applicant’s submissions have been carefully reviewed and considered and it does not constitute “tampering” of any kind that the Decision reflects some of the applicant’s arguments and not others. As I stated above, fundamentally, the applicant disagrees with my Decision.

ORDER

9I deny the Request for Reconsideration for the reasons set out above.