HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Marga Bellon
Applicant
-and-
Donauschwaben Park Waldheim Incorporated
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw
Indexed as: Bellon v. Donauschwaben Park Waldheim Incorporated
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Marga Bellon, Applicant
Michael Bellon, Representative
Introduction
1On August 11, 2016, the Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, 2016 HRTO 1072, dismissing the Application. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision.
BACKGROUND
2The Tribunal’s Decision dismissed the Application as having no reasonable prospect of success.
THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
3On November 11, 2016, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration asking the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision on the basis that there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier.
4The applicant states the respondent withheld important information directly preventing the applicant from exercising her equal rights. The applicant further submits that without these documents the applicant could not meaningfully prove support for her claim, and had to expend considerable time and go to great lengths to attain the documents without the respondent’s assistance.
the law
5The 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, last amended April 2014). 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 [emphasis added]
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.
6The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration includes the following statements:
Reconsideration is a discretionary remedy; there is no right to have a decision reconsidered by the HRTO. Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to change the way it presented its case.
analysis and decision
7As 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
8On 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.
9A 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 August 11, 2016 Decision. However, the applicant did not submit the Request for Reconsideration until November 11, 2016, three months after the Decision was issued.
10The applicant has provided no information or justification for why the Request for Reconsideration was made beyond the timeline stipulated in Rule 26. As such, I find that the applicant did not establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.
11In addition, I find that even if the request had been made in a timely manner, the ground for seeking reconsideration does not meet the reconsideration criteria set out in Rule 26. The applicant relies on Rule 26.5(a) as follows:
(a) there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier.
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 asserted the respondent withheld important information, but did not assert that the applicant did not have the information. The applicant also did not identify 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 also 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 16th day of November, 2016.
“Signed By”
Dawn J. Kershaw
Vice-chair```