Rodriguez v. Hamilton Cab Company, 2016 HRTO 1499

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Rolondo Rodriguez

Applicant

-and-

Hamilton Cab Company

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: November 28, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1499

Indexed as: Rodriguez v. Hamilton Cab Company

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Rolando Rodriguez, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1On September 8, 2016, the Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, 2016 HRTO 1185, dismissing the Application. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision.

THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

2The Request for Reconsideration provides the following reasons why the Tribunal should reconsider its Decision:

a. The decision is in conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general matter of public importance;

b. Other factors exist which outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

3The respondent was not called upon to respond to the applicant’s Request.

THE LAW

4Under 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.

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

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.

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.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

8I find that the applicant has not met the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration.

9As indicated above, the applicant relies on Rule 26.5 (c) and (d).

10In support of the Request the applicant makes lengthy submissions alleging every manner of adjudicative misconduct by the member presiding at the hearing. The language used by the applicant to describe the conduct of the Tribunal member is extravagant. So for example the applicant accuses the Tribunal member of lying, hypocrisy, manipulation, fabrication of evidence and polishing “worthless” evidence. Her conduct is described repeatedly as “patently deceptive, dishonest, corrupt and unscrupulous”

11The applicant’s arguments boil down to the submission that the departure from established Tribunal procedure lies in the many alleged unfairness in the manner in which the Tribunal member conducted the hearing. However at the end of the day the applicant’s complaints boil down to the assertion that the Tribunal made a large number of erroneous factual determinations. This is not a basis for reconsideration. As regards the unsubstantiated allegations of unfairness in the hearing process, there are few particulars provided of the many alleged defects in procedure and no evidence proffered to support them. Moreover the allegations are couched in such extravagant language that they appear on their face to be misplaced. In contrast with the applicant’s vituperative description of an unfair hearing the Decision reflects a careful consideration and weighing of the evidence and submissions of the parties. Whether or not the conclusions drawn are agreeable to the applicant or are correct are not questions which can be addressed in a Request for reconsideration.

12I would also observe that even if there was dramatic departure from Tribunal procedure which is far from clear, this case raises no issues of general or public importance that would justify a reconsideration of a case that was fully heard over several days. I am not convinced that any findings made in the Decision are in conflict with established jurisprudence.

13For these reasons the Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.