HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Robert Savage
Applicant
-and-
London & Middlesex Housing Corporation
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw
Indexed as: Savage v. London & Middlesex Housing Corporation
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Robert Savage, Applicant
Self-represented
Introduction
1On July 29, 2015, the Tribunal issued its Decision, 2015 HRTO 1013, finding that the respondent had not discriminated against the applicant on the basis of disability. On August 12, 2015, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration (“Request”) of the decision.
THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
2The applicant’s reasons for requesting reconsideration are:
This decision is in conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance.
Other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.
3More specifically, the applicant argues that I:
a. had a conflict of interest because I attended the University of Western Ontario;
b. had a conflict of interest because I was the adjudicator in the applicant’s girlfriend’s 2013 Social Benefits Tribunal appeal;
c. kept interrupting the applicant’s opening statement; and
d. did not indicate in my decision the reason for refusing to use my ability to go on with the case.
the law
4Under section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (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.
5The 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, last amended April 2014). 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.
626.5. 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.
7The Tribunal’s 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.
8As 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.
9The 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.
decision
10The applicant relies on Rule 26.5(c) and (d). I find that the applicant has not met the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration. The applicant has not:
addressed why the decision is in conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure; and
established that there are factors that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.
11The applicant makes no submissions with respect to how my decision conflicts with established case law or Tribunal procedure, other than that he asserts that when he in past cases has shown there is a conflict of interest, the adjudicator or judge has stepped down, and I did not do so.
12In this case, there was, and is, no conflict of interest and there was no reason for me to step down. Until the applicant attached the cover page of my Social Benefits Tribunal decision with respect to his girlfriend, I did not know I had heard her appeal in 2013. In any event, her appeal is completely irrelevant to this Application.
13With respect to any other factors that outweigh the public interest in the finality of decisions, the applicant raises my attendance at the University of Western Ontario which is irrelevant to this Application.
14The applicant also alleges that I interrupted him. I did so infrequently in an attempt to steer the applicant back to addressing the relevant issues at the hearing, which is my duty as an adjudicator.
15I do not understand the applicant’s submission that I refused to use my ability to go on with the case, but this appears to be the applicant’s attempt to appeal my decision because he disagrees with it. This is not the purpose of a reconsideration request, as is set out in the Tribunal’s Practice Decision on Reconsideration.
16In sum, I find that the applicant has not established the existence of any new evidence pursuant to Rule 26.5(a) that would lead to a reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision. The Request is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 24th day of August, 2015.
“Signed by”
Dawn J. Kershaw
Vice-chair