McArthur-Calhoun v. Smith, 2015 HRTO 680

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sandra McArthur-Calhoun

Applicant

-and-

Carol Smith, City of Toronto Legal Services Director, and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community and Social Services

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Sandra McArthur-Calhoun

Applicant

-and-

Superior Court of Justice (Family Court Division) and Madam Justice Greer

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: May 25, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 680 Indexed as: McArthur-Calhoun v. Smith

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Sandra McArthur-Calhoun, Applicant

Self-represented

1On May 6, 2015, the Tribunal issued its Decisions in these two Applications, 2015 HRTO 574 and 2015 HRTO 576, dismissing these Applications as abandoned. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision.

2On March 9, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss both of these Applications (“NOID”) because it appeared that they may both be outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to decide. The applicant was directed to provide her written submissions in response to the NOIDs before April 8, 2015. The applicant was further advised that if she did not provide written submissions by the required time the Tribunal may make its decision based only on the information in the Applications or may consider the failure to respond as an abandonment of the Applications and dismiss it for that reason.

3The applicant requested an extension of time to file her submissions, which was granted, but did not ultimately respond to the NOIDs and the time for doing so passed.

4In the Decisions I dismissed both Applications because the applicant was deemed to have abandoned them, having not responded to the NOIDs.

DECISION

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 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.

7The 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.

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.

9In her Requests, which are identical, the applicant says simply that she wants “to reopen this case and add to the complaint”. The applicant states further that she has not sought social assistance and she works full-time. The applicant queries why the City Solicitor is in her life because she is a law-abiding citizen.

10I am not satisfied that the applicant has established sufficient grounds to reconsider the Decisions. The applicant simply requests that it be done but provides no reasons to explain why the Tribunal should reconsider its final Decisions in these cases. There is no explanation offered for her failure to comply with the Tribunal’s Directions and respond to the NOIDs and no indication that she will do so in the future.

11For these reasons 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 Decisions. The Requests are denied.