HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
P. Tahir
Applicant
-and-
Indigo Books and Music Inc.
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle
Indexed as: Tahir v. Indigo Books and Music Inc.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Parveen Tahir, Applicant
Sadia Shah, Representative
Indigo Books and Music Inc., Respondent
No submissions
Introduction
1On April 10, 2014, the Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, Tahir v. Indigo Books and Music Inc. 2014 HRTO 509, dismissing the Application. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision.
BACKGROUND
2The Tribunal’s Decision found as follows:
Since June 4, 2013, the Tribunal had made several attempts to obtain information from the applicant about her Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB matter).
On June 4, 2013, the Tribunal requested that she provide her WSIB appeal document to the HRTO. The applicant responded by email stating that her WSIB appeals had nothing to do with her Application and provided a copy of her May 3, 2013 Intent to Object to WSIB decisions of November 6, 2012, November 20, 2012 and April 23, 2013. The Notice of Intent did not provide any information about the nature of her appeals.
On July 31, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (CAD) directing the applicant to file a copy of each WSIB decision which she was appealing and any further documentation regarding that appeal process within 14 days. The applicant responded by email on August 19, 2013, but did not provide the documents as directed.
The Tribunal issued a further CAD on November 20, 2013 again directing her to provide a copy of any and all WSIB decisions being appealed in addition to any further documentation she had regarding her appeal process at the WSIB. The CAD also advised that a summary hearing would be schedule in the Application. The applicant did not respond to the CAD.
The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing for April 11, 2014. In the Notice of Summary Hearing, dated December 17, 2013, the applicant was again referred to the November 20, 2013 CAD directing her to deliver to the respondent and file with the Tribunal copies of each WSIB decision which she was appealing and any further WSIB documentation she had regarding the appeal process. She failed to make the directed disclosures.
On April 4, 2014, the Tribunal issued a third CAD which repeated the direction to disclose the documentation respecting her WSIB appeals. The CAD warned the applicant that if she failed to make disclosures by April 9, 2014, her Application may be dismissed as abandoned.
She did not make the directed disclosures and on April 10, 2014, the Tribunal dismissed her Application as abandoned. The summary hearing scheduled for April 11, 2014 was cancelled.
THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
3The Request for Reconsideration provides the following reasons why the Tribunal should reconsider its Decision:
a. There are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier;
b. The applicant was entitled to notice, but through no fault of her own, did not receive notice of the proceeding or a hearing.
4The Tribunal has not sought a Response to the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration from the respondent.
THE LAW
5Under 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.
6The 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.
7The 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.
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. 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
9I find that the applicant has not met the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration.
10As indicated above, the applicant relies on Rule 26.5 (a) and (b). She submits that she was confused about what documentation to send to the Tribunal. She submits that she did not receive the April 4, 2014 CAD until “after hours” on April 9, 2014, after requesting the courier to make a “re-delivery”. She submits that she called the Tribunal on April 10, 2014, and was preparing to send the documentation, when she received a call from the Tribunal advising her that he case had been closed.
11The applicant has not identified any new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier. For this reason this aspect of the Request must be dismissed.
12There is nothing before me suggesting that the applicant was entitled to but did not receive notice of the proceeding or a hearing. In fact the applicant does not suggest that she did not receive the December 17, 2013 notice of Summary Hearing, which also reminded the parties that the timelines for delivery and filing of any documents or submissions had been set out in the November 20, 2013 CAD. As regards the applicant’s receiving the April 4 CAD, the real basis for this Request, the applicant indicates that on Wednesday April 9, 2014, she left a note for the courier seeking re-delivery of the April 4, 2014 CAD which was sent by the Tribunal by courier and by regular mail on Friday, April 4, 2014. She has offered no explanation for the delay in seeking re-delivery. She has not indicated when she received the copy sent by regular mail. I also note that she does not indicate that she did not receive the earlier CADs, including a November 20, 2013 email to which she did not respond, nor has she indicated why she did not respond to that CAD in any way, including making any inquiries of the Tribunal regarding any confusion she felt regarding the direction. The November 20, 2013 CAD clearly directed her as follows:
The applicant is again specifically directed to file copies of each WSIB decision Praveen Tahir is appealing and any further WSIB documentation regarding her appeal process which she has.
13Based on these facts I am not satisfied that the applicant did not receive adequate notice of her need to provide the requested documentation and notice of the potential consequence of her repeated failure to comply with the Tribunal’s Directions with respect to the WSIB documentation.
14In sum, I 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. The Request is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 20^th^ day of November, 2015.
“signed by”
Maureen Doyle
Vice-chair```