HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Simon Malek
Applicant
-and-
Mountain City Housing Co-operative Inc.
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Naomi Overend
Indexed as: Malek v. Mountain City Housing Co-operative Inc.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Simon Malek, Applicant ) Self-represented
[1] On February 4, 2015, the Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, 2015 HRTO 181 (“the Decision”), dismissing the Application. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider the Decision.
BACKGROUND
[2] The 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 ground of discrimination selected in the Application.
[3] The applicant filed the Request for Reconsideration (“the Request”) on March 4, 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 that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.
[4] In the Request, the applicant reiterates the argument he made in his written and oral submissions at the summary hearing. He also provides further detail about his interactions with the respondent, as well as new allegations about improprieties committed by the respondent. He does not assert that this further information was not reasonably available to him as of the date of the summary hearing.
CONCLUSIONS
[5] Under 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.
[6] The 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.
[8] While I accept that the applicant does not agree with the Decision, and that he sincerely believes he has been the victim of unfair treatment, this is not a sufficient reason to allow the Tribunal to reconsider the Decision. The submissions in his Request for Reconsideration are largely a repeat of argument he made at the summary hearing. The additional details he supplies with respect to the respondent’s alleged conduct were available to him at the time of the summary hearing. As noted above, reconsideration is not “an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of its case.”
[9] 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.
DECISION
[10] The Request for Reconsideration is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 13th day of March, 2015.
“Signed by”
Naomi Overend
Vice-chair