Tekeste Weldu v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2015 HRTO 130

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Tekeste Weldu

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Transit Commission

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson

Date: January 28, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 130

Indexed as: Weldu v. Toronto Transit Commission

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Tekeste Weldu, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1On November 18, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Decision in this Application, 2014 HRTO 1664, dismissing the Application on the basis that the applicant was deemed to have abandoned the Application. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision to dismiss the Application as abandoned.

BACKGROUND

2This Application was filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the "Code"), on May 20, 2014. In the Application, the applicant alleges that a female street car driver pushed him off a street car, causing him to fall to the ground.

3By letter to the applicant dated May 21, 2014, the Tribunal confirmed that it had received the Application. On June 26, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Incomplete Application to the applicant, at the address the applicant provided in the Application, advising the applicant that the Application was incomplete. The applicant was asked to answer specific questions, and return the information to the Tribunal by no later than July 16, 2014.

4On July 22, 2014, the Tribunal again wrote to the applicant indicating that the applicant had not responded to the Tribunal's Notice of Incomplete Application. The applicant was asked to provide the missing information by August 1, 2014. The Tribunal received further information from the applicant on August 5, 2014.

5On August 14, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application ("NOID") on the basis that the Application appears to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction. In particular, the Tribunal indicated that a review of the Application, and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination, failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondent. The applicant was directed to respond to the issues raised in the NOID by no later than September 15, 2014. The applicant was advised that a failure to respond to the NOID by the required time may be considered an abandonment of the Application, and the Application might be dismissed for that reason.

6As of November 18, 2014, the applicant had not responded to the Tribunal's August 14, 2014 NOID, and the NOID had not been returned as undeliverable. The Tribunal issued a Decision, deeming the applicant to have abandoned the Application, and dismissing the Application on that basis.

RECONSIDERATION

7Under 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.

8The Tribunal has issued Rules governing 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 June 2008). Most relevant to this Decision are Rules 26.1 and 26.5 which state:

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.

9The Tribunal's Practice Direction on Reconsideration begins with the following statement:

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.

10As 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. It may decide when reconsideration is advisable, both through the promulgation of rules setting out conditions for the exercise of its discretion, and through the application of its discretion on a case-by-case basis.

11In the Request for Reconsideration ("Request"), the applicant relies on Rule 26.5 (b) of the Tribunal's Rules; however, for the following reasons, I find that there is nothing before me to suggest that any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration have been met.

12In support of his Request, the applicant states that he did not receive the Tribunal's Notice of Incomplete Application in June 2014. He also alleges that a street car driver kicked him in the stomach, and he fell backwards on to a sidewalk.

13Rule 5.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure provides that the Tribunal may finally determine an Application without further notice to any person who cannot be contacted by the Tribunal according to the contact information provided to the Tribunal by that person. Rule 1.13 also provides that parties must notify the Tribunal, in writing, of any change in their contact information, as soon as possible.

14In the present case, all of the Tribunal's correspondence to the applicant, referred to above, was sent to the applicant at the address he provided in the Application, and nothing that the Tribunal sent to the applicant has been returned as undeliverable. The applicant has not provided the Tribunal with any other contact information. In his Request, the applicant simply states that he did not receive the Tribunal's June 26, 2014 Notice of Incomplete Application. The applicant has not provided any explanation for why he did not respond to the Tribunal's August 14, 2014 NOID, which resulted in the Tribunal deeming the Application to have been abandoned.

15In the circumstances, having regard to Rule 26.5(b) of the Tribunal's Rules, I am not satisfied that the applicant has established that he did not receive notice through no fault of its own. In my view, the applicant has not established any of the threshold criteria in Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal's Rules that would justify reconsideration.

16The Request is denied.