HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Rosemary Selah Applicant
-and-
Fred Victor T2H Program Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Josée Bouchard Date: October 20, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 1361 Indexed as: Selah v. Fred Victor T2H Program
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Rosemary Selah, Applicant Self-represented
1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on February 29, 2016, alleging discrimination in the area of housing because of disability and receipt of public assistance.
2By way of decision, 2016 HRTO 876, the Application was dismissed on July 4, 2016, as abandoned because the applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal’s April 4, 2016 Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the Application is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
3This Reconsideration Decision addresses the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration of decision 2016 HRTO 876 dismissing her Application.
Reconsideration REQUEST
4On September 8, 2016, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration asking the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision on the basis that the Decision is in conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance.
5The applicant’s submissions appear to be that in March 2016, the management and staff of the respondent’s program were replaced and all previous records for the applicant have disappeared. The applicant requests that the Tribunal reconsider its decision and do what was previously requested in the Application. The applicant notes that she has relapsed and is living in undue hardship. She is hopeless and depressed and does not trust the respondent.
6Section 45.7 of the Code provides the Tribunal with 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 [emphasis added]
7I note that, on the basis of delay alone, the Tribunal may deny the Request for Reconsideration. See der von Felix v. International Financial Data Services (Canada), 2010 HRTO 362, and Liu v. Country Herbs, 2011 HRTO 1166.
8A 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. The applicant was required to file her reconsideration request within 30 days of the Tribunal’s July 4, 2016 Decision. However, the applicant did not submit this Request for Reconsideration until September 8, 2016, by which point the deadline for reconsideration had elapsed. The applicant has provided no meaningful information or justification for why the Request for Reconsideration was made beyond the timeline stipulated in Rule 26.
9As such, I find that the applicant did not establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.
10In 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 26. Rule 26.5 provides that 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;
(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;
(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.
11The Tribunal has issued a Practice Direction to provide guidance on the Tribunal’s exercise of its reconsideration powers (Practice Direction on Reconsideration, January 2008 amended June 2008). The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration states, in part, the following with respect to the Tribunal’s power to grant reconsideration:
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.
12Based on my review of the reconsideration request, I do not find that any of the criteria supporting reconsideration of the original decision have been established. The applicant has not identified any new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier. The applicant’s request does not raise issues of general importance nor outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.
13In conclusion, I find that the applicant failed to file her Request for Reconsideration in a timely manner and has not established the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26.5 that would lead to reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Interim Decision.
14Accordingly, the request for reconsideration is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 20th day of October, 2016.
“Signed by”
Josée Bouchard Vice-chair