Mathurin v. Janice Goodman, 2015 HRTO 578

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Myrlande Marie Mathurin

Applicant

-and-

Janice Goodman

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: May 6, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 578

Indexed as: Mathurin v. Janice Goodman

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Myrlande Marie Mathurin, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1In a Decision dated February 10, 2015, the Tribunal dismissed the Application that had been filed by the applicant pursuant to section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) when the applicant failed to participate in a Summary Hearing that had been scheduled for February 6, 2015.

2The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration (the “Request”) on April 24, 2015. The Tribunal has not required a response to the Request from the respondent.

3For the reasons set out below, the applicant’s Request is dismissed.

background

4The applicant filed her Application on September 4, 2014. As required she provided a mailing address (“mailing address”) on her Application as part of her “contact information” and indicated that the best way to send information to her was by mail.

5On September 8, 2014, the Tribunal sent the applicant a notice of “Confirmation of Receipt of Application” by regular mail to her mailing address. It was not returned as undeliverable to the Tribunal.

6The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction dated October 7, 2014 (“CAD”) directing on its own initiative, that a summary hearing would be scheduled to determine whether the Application should be dismissed, in whole or in part, on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application, or part of the Application would succeed.

7The CAD was sent to the applicant on October 7, 2014 by regular mail to her mailing address. It was not returned as undeliverable to the Tribunal.

8On November 26, 2014, the Tribunal sent the parties a Notice of Summary Hearing scheduling the summary hearing by teleconference call for February 6, 2015 (the “summary hearing”). The Notice set out the call information for the summary hearing. The Notice was sent to the applicant by regular mail at her mailing address. It was not returned as undeliverable to the Tribunal. It was sent to the respondent by regular mail at the address provided by the respondent.

9On January 30, 2015 the applicant filed with the Tribunal the documents she wanted to rely on at the summary hearing. In her covering letter she indicates that the documents are for “my summary conference call Hearing on Friday, February 6th, 2015.”

10The respondent participated in the summary hearing, but the applicant did not. Consistent with the Tribunal’s practices, the Tribunal held down the start of the hearing for 30 minutes. When the hearing reconvened, the applicant still had not called in or otherwise communicated with the Tribunal. The Application was dismissed orally by the Tribunal at that time as being abandoned.

11On February 10, 2015 the Tribunal sent the applicant the summary hearing Decision by regular mail at the applicant’s mailing address. It was not returned as undeliverable to the Tribunal. In the Decision, the Tribunal found that the applicant received timely and proper notice of the summary hearing and that it had not received any indication the applicant would not be attending the hearing. In the absence of the applicant or any explanation for her failure to participate in the hearing, the Application was dismissed as abandoned.

request for reconsideration

12Section 45.7 of the Code provides the Tribunal with the authority to reconsider its decisions. Further to its power to make rules, the Tribunal has issued Rules governing Requests for Reconsideration. Most relevant to this Reconsideration 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.

13I note that, on the basis of delay alone, the Tribunal may deny a request for reconsideration. See der von Felix v. International Financial Services (Canada), 2010 HRTO 362 and Hardman v. Grey County Housing, 2012 HRTO 1142.

14A request for reconsideration filed beyond the 30 day deadline will not be granted unless the Tribunal determines that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay. I find that no explanation has been offered for the delay in filing this Request and no explanation as to why the applicant was unable to comply with the Tribunal’s Rules. The applicant was required to file her reconsideration request within 30 days of the Tribunal’s February 10, 2015 Decision. However the applicant did not submit this Request until April 24, 2015, at which point the deadline for reconsideration had lapsed. The applicant has not provided any meaningful information or justification for why the Request was made over two months beyond the timeline stipulated in Rule 26.

15As such, I find that the applicant did not establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

16In addition, I find that even if the Request had been made in a timely manner, the grounds for seeking reconsideration do not meet the reconsideration criteria set out in Rule 25. Tribunal Rule 26.5 reads, in part as follows:

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 entitles to but, through no fault of its own, did not receive notice of the proceeding or the 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 and orders.

17With respect to (b), notwithstanding her claim that she did not receive notice, I am satisfied that the applicant had proper notice of the summary hearing. The applicant asked the Tribunal to communicate with her by mail at the mailing address that she provided in the Application. The Tribunal did so. None of its communication was returned as undeliverable. In my view, for the purposes of communicating with the applicant it was reasonable for the Tribunal to rely on the mailing address provided by the applicant in her Application. See Zablocking v. Cochrane Food Bank Inc., 2012 HRTO 2009. That the applicant referred to the hearing date in her communication with the Tribunal on January 30, 2015, is consistent with the applicant having received the Notice of Summary Hearing.

18In my view, the Tribunal provided the applicant with the Notice of Summary Hearing when it sent it to the applicant’s mailing address. At no time prior to the summary hearing date did the applicant provide a change of address. The applicant has not satisfied me that she did not receive the notice of proceeding through no fault of her own.

19As for the other criteria set out in Rule 26.5, the applicant does not point to any new facts or evidence nor does she point to established case law or Tribunal procedures that are in conflict with the Decision. She also does not describe any factors that would outweigh the public interest in the finality of the Tribunal’s Decision.

20For these reasons, the Request is denied.