Collin Dolny v. GoodLife Fitness Centers Inc., 2015 HRTO 1562

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Collin Dolny Applicant

-and-

GoodLife Fitness Centers Inc. Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: November 18, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1562

Indexed as: Dolny v. GoodLife Fitness Centers Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Collin Dolny, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1On October 25, 2015, the Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, 2015 HRTO 1411, dismissing the Application.

BACKGROUND

2On October 2, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) the Application because the Application was outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The applicant filed submissions in response to the NOID on October 14, 2015. The Tribunal subsequently dismissed the Application as being outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in that 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 Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

3The applicant seeks reconsideration of the Decision to dismiss his Application. He argues that I failed to consider his extensive submissions and, presumably, had I fully reviewed those submissions I would not have dismissed the Application. He supports his argument by pointing out that his submissions were received by the Tribunal on October 14, 2015, and the decision dismissing the Application was released October 22, 2015. He writes: “It is difficult to believe the adjuratory (sic) reviewed ALL the documents provided to the Tribunal in the length of time he had to do so.”

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 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, last amended April 2014). Most relevant to this Decision is Rule 26 which 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.

6The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration includes the following statements:

Reconsideration is a discretionary remedy; there is no right to have a decision reconsidered by the HRTO. Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to change the way it presented its case.

7As 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.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

8In his Request the applicant checked the box indicating that the reason for his Request is that other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions (Rule 26.5(d)).

9In support of his Request, the applicant essentially argues that I did not read or appreciate his submissions prior to releasing my Decision dismissing the Application implying that otherwise I would not have dismissed the Application.

10I can assure the applicant that his submissions were considered. That being said, at the end of the day, the applicant is essentially arguing that my decision is wrong. As stated earlier, reconsideration not an appeal.

11In his Request, the applicant makes no relevant submissions that bear on the identified ground for reconsideration. The thrust of the applicant’s submissions merely reiterate arguments made earlier in the process. While it is evident that the applicant disagrees with the Tribunal’s finding, he has presented no basis for exercising my discretion to reconsider my earlier decision.

order

12The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.