HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Ronald King
Applicant
-and-
London Life Insurance Company and Murphy Planning Partners
Respondents
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott
Indexed as: King v. London Life Insurance Company
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Ronald King, Applicant
Richard Mazar, Counsel
introduction
1The summary hearing in this matter was scheduled for November 4, 2015. The purpose of the summary hearing was to determine whether the allegations in the Application were untimely and whether there was no reasonable prospect that the Application would succeed.
2The applicant and/or his counsel did not attend the summary hearing.
3By decision 2015 HRTO 1487 (the “Decision”), released on November 4, 2015, I dismissed this Application as abandoned because the applicant failed to attend the summary hearing.
4The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Decision through his legal counsel on November 26, 2015. The applicant’s legal counsel advised the Tribunal that he had incorrectly diarized the date of the summary hearing as November 10, 2015 instead of November 4, 2015. He believes that this error may have occurred because the Notice of the Summary Hearing was dated July 10, 2015 and he erroneously recorded the date as November 10 instead of November 4. He states further that he spoke with respondents’ counsel on November 2, 2015 about resolution of the Application and at the end of their conversation, it was left that the matter would be dealt with at the hearing. This is consistent with the information provided by respondents’ counsel during the summary hearing.
decision
5The Request for Reconsideration is allowed.
analysis
6Under 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.
7The Tribunal has issued Rules governing such requests as well as a Practice Direction to provide guidance on the Tribunal’s exercise of its reconsideration powers. Rule 26 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states:
26.1 Any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within 30 days from 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.
8The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration states Reconsideration is a discretionary remedy: there is no right to have a decision reconsidered by the Tribunal.
9In my view, Reconsideration should be granted in this case because the failure to attend the summary hearing was due to an error on the part of applicant’s counsel. I do not believe the applicant should be prejudiced because of the error of his counsel. I would note that the respondents have taken no position on the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration. I find that other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions. For these reasons, the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration is allowed.
10In his submissions on the Request for Reconsideration, the applicant’s counsel objects to the fact that the Tribunal or respondents’ counsel did not contact him when he failed to attend the summary hearing. The Tribunal simply does not have the resources to track people down when they fail to show up for hearings. Further, it is not the responsibility of respondents’ counsel to try to locate applicant’s counsel when he does not attend a hearing. It is the responsibility of parties and their counsel to attend hearings on their scheduled dates.
order
11The applicant’s Request for Reconsideration is allowed.
12The matter will be re-scheduled for a summary hearing in accordance with the Case Assessment Direction dated July 10, 2015.
This Dated at Toronto, this 25^th^ day of January, 2016.
“signed by”
Jennifer Scott
Vice-chair