Joanne Vargianitis v. Landlord and Tenant Board and Karen Wallace, 2015 HRTO 1398

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Joanne Vargianitis

Applicant

-and-

Landlord and Tenant Board and Karen Wallace

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw

Date: October 21, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1398

Indexed as: Vargianitis v. Landlord and Tenant Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Joanne Vargianitis, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1On March 20, 2015, the Tribunal issued its Decision, 2015 HRTO 356, dismissing the Application because of adjudicative immunity. On April 22, 2015, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the decision (“Request”), which was delivered to the respondents on October 6, 2015.

THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

2The applicant’s reasons for requesting reconsideration are:

a. There are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier; and

b. Other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

3More specifically, the applicant argues that the respondents made the wrong decision and that they must accommodate people with disabilities.

the law

4Under 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.

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 Rules 26.5(a) and (d), and attaches to her Request for Reconsideration (“Request”) an Order of the Superior Court of Justice resulting from a hearing assessment on January 5, 2015 and a January 25, 2015 letter from the respondent in that court proceeding to the judge who made the Order. These documents do not constitute new information that could not have been available at the hearing.

11This Application was dismissed because of adjudicative immunity. This Tribunal cannot sit in judgment of another Tribunal’s decisions. The documents the applicant attaches to her Request do not change this Tribunal’s decision.

12The applicant also relies on Rule 26.5(d) but does not explain what other factors exist that would outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

13The Request clearly is an attempt to appeal this decision, which is not the purpose of a reconsideration request, as is set out in the Tribunal’s Practice Decision on Reconsideration.

14In sum, I find that the applicant has not established the existence of any new evidence that could not have been available at the time the decision was made or that potentially could have been determinative of the issues, or that there are any factors that would outweigh the public’s interest in the finality of the Tribunal’s decisions. As such, the Request for Reconsideration is denied.