Hans Felix v. Beaux Properties Management International Inc., 2016 HRTO 1594

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Hans Felix Applicant

-and-

Beaux Properties Management International Inc., Athena Metaxas and Mike Arab Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren Date: December 9, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 1594 Indexed as: Felix v. Beaux Properties Management International Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Hans Felix, Applicant Self-represented

1The applicant filed this Application alleging discrimination contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) on February 26, 2015.

2On July 20, 2015, the Tribunal deferred the Application pending the outcome of another proceeding.

3On July 28, 2016, the Tribunal mailed a letter to the parties in which it requested the applicant to advise the Tribunal of the status of the other proceeding by August 28, 2016. The letter warned the applicant that failing to respond may result in the Application being dismissed as abandoned.

4On September 6, 2016 the Tribunal issued decision 2016 HRTO 1173 (“Decision”) in which the Application was dismissed as abandoned because the applicant had not provided an update on the status of the other proceeding as he had be directed to do in the July 28, 2016 letter.

5On September 27, 2016 the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration. He states that the reason he is requesting a Reconsideration is that “No e-mail notification of anything or request except for an HRTO e-mail July 20th, 2015; nothing else further not received anything by Canada post mail.”

Decision

6The circumstances in which a Request for Reconsideration may be granted are set out in Rule 26.5.

7A 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 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.

9The applicant indicates that he has not received any email correspondence from the Tribunal since July 20, 2015; however, a review of the Tribunal’s correspondence indicates that on November 12, 2015 the applicant sent an email to the Tribunal and on November 13, 2015 the Tribunal sent an email response. The Tribunal received no notice that the November 13, 2015 email was undeliverable.

10The July 28, 2016 letter was sent to the applicant at the email address, he provided. The Tribunal received no notice that the July 28, 2016 email was undeliverable.

11The Decision was sent to the applicant by email using the same email address as had been used to email the July 28, 2016 letter. The Tribunal received no notice that the email of the Decision was undeliverable. It is clear that the applicant did receive this email with the attached Decision or he would not have known that the Tribunal had issued the Decision dismissing his Appliction which is the basis for this Reconsideration request.

12The applicant has not established the existence of any of the criteria in the Tribunal’s Rule 26 that would lead to reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision.

13The Request is denied.