Gonzalez v. Revera Long Term Care Inc., 2015 HRTO 1251

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Daniel Gonzalez

Applicant

-and-

Revera Long Term Care Inc. carrying on business as Main Street Terrace

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: September 21, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1251 Indexed as: Gonzalez v. Revera Long Term Care Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Daniel Gonzalez, Applicant ) Self-represented

1On July 29, 2015, the Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, 2015 HRTO 1007 (“the Decision”), dismissing the Application. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider the Decision.

BACKGROUND

2The Decision dismissed the Application on the basis that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success of establishing a link between the respondent’s alleged actions and the grounds of discrimination selected in the Application.

3The applicant filed the Request for Reconsideration (“the Request”) on August 31, 2015. The Request indicates that the applicant believes that the Application was dismissed in error. The basis for his Request is that there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case, and that other factors exist which outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

4In the Request, the applicant states that he did not understand that he would have to request a translator, and that given his disabilities and lack of legal representation, he would like to be able to participate in a proceeding in which he could “understand and express” himself in his own language. He also asserts that he has new evidence and witnesses concerning one of the factual matters in dispute.

CONCLUSIONS

5Under section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, 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.

6The Tribunal has issued Rules governing such requests to reconsider Decisions of the Tribunal. Rule 26 states:

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; 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 states in part:

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.

8The summary conducted before me was in-person. The Tribunal had scheduled a previous summary hearing, by teleconference, but adjourned it when the applicant stated that he had not received the Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) setting out the reason for the summary hearing and indicated, also, that he wished to have an interpreter. The Tribunal sent out a follow-up CAD, dated April 14, 2015, with a number of directions, including the following:

If the applicant wishes to request an interpreter for the hearing, the applicant shall make the request in writing to the Registrar of the Tribunal within 14 days of the date of this Case Assessment Direction, with a copy to the respondent.

9The applicant did not file a request, timely or otherwise, for the interpreter. At the July 9, 2015 summary hearing, which was in person to facilitate translation (if requested), the applicant did not indicate that he could not proceed in the absence of a translator. Indeed, although it was clear that English was not his first language, the applicant fully participated in the hearing, providing oral submissions, and appropriately responding to the respondent’s submissions and my questions.

10With respect to the new evidence and witnesses, the applicant does not assert that this further information was not reasonably available to him as of the date of the summary hearing.

11I find that the applicant has not established the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26 that would lead to reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision.

DECISION

12The Request for Reconsideration is denied.