Thompson v. PUC Distribution Inc., 2015 HRTO 1191

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Michael Thompson

Applicant

-and-

PUC Distribution Inc.

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Eli Fellman

Date: September 9, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1191

Indexed as: Thompson v. PUC Distribution Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Michael Thompson, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1This is a request filed by the applicant to reconsider the Tribunal’s decision dated March 30, 2015, 2015 HRTO 407, dismissing the Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The Request for Reconsideration was filed on August 26, 2015.

3Under 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.

4The Tribunal has issued Rules governing such requests. Most relevant to this Decision is Rule 26 which 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.

26.5.1 A Request for Reconsideration made more than 30 days following the Decision will not be granted unless the Tribunal determines that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay.

5The Request for Reconsideration was filed almost five months after the Tribunal’s decision was issued and is therefore well beyond the 30-day deadline for making such requests. Accordingly, the Request for Reconsideration will not be granted unless the Tribunal determines that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay.

6The Tribunal has repeatedly found that that a delay is not incurred in good faith simply because a party did not understand the process or was ignorant of the law: see Sadeghzadeh v. Gesco Limited Partnership, 2012 HRTO 1109; Imrie-Howlett v. Peel District School Board, 2009 HRTO 1339; Desauliniers v. Canadian Auto Workers, 2009 HRTO 1743; Winston v. University Health Network, 2011 HRTO 1648. There must be something more than simply a misunderstanding of the process to establish that a delay was incurred in good faith.

7The applicant’s explanation for the delay in this case is that he did not realize until now that he had the option of requesting a reconsideration because the decision sounded final. He also notes that he is not lawyer and that doing paperwork causes him headaches due to his chemical sensitivities.

8The applicant has provided no meaningful justification for why the Request for Reconsideration was made well beyond the timeline stipulated in Rule 26 and, therefore, has not established good faith within the meaning of Rule 26.5.1. Consistent with the Tribunal’s well-established jurisprudence, I find that the applicant’s submission that he was unaware of his right to file a reconsideration request until recently does not constitute a good faith explanation for the delay.

9As I have found that the delay is not incurred in good faith, it is not necessary to consider whether substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay. Accordingly, I find that the request is untimely and should be dismissed on that basis.

ORDER

10The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.