Papouchine v. Touram L.P., 2015 HRTO 92

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Alexandre Papouchine

Applicant

-and-

Touram L.P. d.b.a. Air Canada Vacations, Volkswagen Canada, Audi Mississauga, Travel Industry Council of Ontario, Will Davidson LLP, The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company, and Arthur Bode

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume

Date: January 22, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 92

Indexed as: Papouchine v. Touram L.P.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Alexandre Papouchine, Applicant

Self-represented

1The applicant seeks reconsideration of the Decision, 2014 HRTO 588, dismissing his Applications.

2For the reasons set out below, I find that the applicant has not established the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (“Rules”) that would cause me to reconsider my Decision.

The Decision being challenged

3In the Decision, I declared the applicant to be a vexatious litigant. I also found that his Applications had no reasonable prospect of success, which was based in part on the fact that the applicant was unable to point to evidence, beyond his own assumptions and beliefs, which would support his allegations of discrimination against the respondents.

Applicable Principles relating to reconsideration

4In Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34, the Tribunal stated that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case. Once the Tribunal has made a decision in a case, parties are entitled to treat the matter as closed, subject to limited exceptions.

5The circumstances in which a Request for Reconsideration may be granted are set out in Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules:

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.

Analysis of the ReQuest for Reconsideration

6It is apparent from a careful review of the applicant’s Request that he disagrees with my decision and considers it legally incorrect. As I have indicated above, the Tribunal’s reconsideration power is discretionary and does not represent an opportunity for the applicant to reargue his case.

7The applicant also made a request in the form of a letter to the Tribunal to correct what he describes as clerical errors. The alleged errors he has highlighted are not clerical in nature. The applicant has asked for additions and deletions to the text of the Decision based on his disagreement with my findings. This request is denied.

ORDER

8I deny the Request for Reconsideration and the request to correct alleged clerical errors for the reasons set out above.