Dobson v. Boardwalk Rentals, 2016 HRTO 1553

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Grant Dobson

Applicant

-and-

Boardwalk Rentals

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: December 2, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1553

Indexed as: Dobson v. Boardwalk Rentals

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Grant Dobson, Applicant ) Self-represented

1On May 31, 2016, the Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, 2016 HRTO 744, dismissing the Application. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision.

2In the Decision the Tribunal dismissed the Application pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code because it was determined that the substance of the Application had been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding.

THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

3In his Request for Reconsideration the applicant asserts that there is new evidence which has never been seen and that the Decision is flawed. The applicant also appears to reiterate arguments that were made at the hearing including that the issues raised in the Application were not dealt with in the other proceeding before the Landlord and Tenant Board (“LTB”).

4The respondent was not called upon to respond to the applicant’s Request.

THE LAW

5Under 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.

6The 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.

7The 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.

8As 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

9I find that the applicant has not met the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration. The applicant’s Request relies on what is described new evidence which has not been seen before. In this regard the applicant filed statements from several individuals attesting to facts surrounding the dispute described in the Application. The applicant also supplied an audio recording of some of the evidence from a related proceeding at the LTB. This material was reviewed.

10Even if I were to accept that this evidence were fresh evidence not reasonably available within the meaning of Rule 26.5(a) reconsideration of the Decision would still not be appropriate. This is so because the basis for the dismissal of the Application was not that there was no evidence to support the applicant’s claims but that the issues raised had been dealt with in a prior proceeding. Although the applicant continues to dispute this fact it is plain and obvious on the face of the decision of the LTB that the identifiable issues were raised there and adjudicated. I also note that the audio recording provided by the applicant appears to confirm that the alleged Code breaches were before the LTB. Whatever alleged defects in the LTB process, the remedy for the applicant cannot be in re-litigating those issues here at the Tribunal.

11For these reasons the Request for reconsideration is denied.