Massa v. London Men’s Baseball League, 2015 HRTO 470

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Joe Massa Applicant

-and-

London Men’s Baseball League Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: April 14, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 470 Indexed as: Massa v. London Men’s Baseball League

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Joe Massa, Applicant Self-represented

1On February 6, 2015, the Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, 2015 HRTO 174, dismissing the Application. In the Decision I determined that the applicant was prevented from filing the Application with the Tribunal because of section 34(11) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), which bars Applications where the applicant has pursued his human rights claims in a civil proceeding.

2On March 30, 2015, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration (“Request”) pursuant to section 45.7 of the Code.

3Under 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.

4The 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 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.

5The 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.

6As 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.

7I find that the applicant has not met the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration.

8The applicant’s submissions largely relate the background to the central issue dealt with in the Decision. The applicant argues that the court proceeding did not address the issues in this Application because it did not go to trial. The applicant appears to suggest that he could have appealed the court decision dismissing his claim but he did not do so and should be allowed to proceed with this Application. The applicant also argues that he has never been ordered to pay costs to the respondent in the court proceeding and accordingly that issue is moot. The applicant also argues that I have defended the judge’s Decision but that the judge has nothing to do with this case. Finally the applicant argues that the small claims matter had nothing to do with human rights.

9The applicant’s submissions make no reference to any of the factors to be considered in Rule 26. Essentially the applicant’s argument is that the Decision was incorrectly decided. That is not a basis to reconsider a final Decision of the Tribunal.

10In conclusion, 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.