Huang v. City of Toronto, 2016 HRTO 1618

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Lian Huang

Applicant

-and-

City of Toronto

and Kathleen Buchanan

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart

Date: December 15, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1618

Indexed as: Huang v. City of Toronto

1This Decision addresses a Request for Reconsideration filed by the applicant in relation to the Tribunal’s Decision 2015-20359-I dated July 19, 2016, which dismissed the Application as having no reasonable prospect of success.

2On August 9, 2016, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision.

3Section 45.7 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended, (the “Code”) provides as follows:

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.

4Under section 45.7 of the Code, the Tribunal may, at the request of a party or on its own initiative, reconsider a final decision in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules. The Tribunal has issued rules governing such requests as well as a Practice Direction on Reconsideration to provide guidance to the community on the Tribunal’s exercise of its reconsideration powers.

5The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration includes the following:

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.

6As is evident from the above, reconsideration is a discretionary remedy. That is, while the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to re-open 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.

7In Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34, the Tribunal stated that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case. Once the parties to an Application have had the opportunity to present their evidence and arguments to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal has made a decision disposing of the issues, parties are entitled to treat the matter as closed, subject to limited exceptions.

8The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provide that any party may request reconsideration of a final decision in accordance with the Rules. Rule 26.5 of the Rules provides:

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.

9As a result, I need to determine whether the material filed by the applicant in support of his Request for Reconsideration satisfies the criteria set out in Rule 26.5 relied upon in the Request. The applicant relies upon the criteria identified in Rule 26.5(c) and (d).

10The applicant first states that he never filed a complaint against the City of Toronto’s Public Health Department and that the complaint was solely against the personal respondent Ms. Buchanan. In fact, in the Application as filed with the Tribunal, the applicant identifies the City of Toronto’s Public Health Department as the organizational respondent and Ms. Buchanan as the personal respondent. In any event, this is not a basis for reconsideration of the original Decision.

11The applicant next makes reference to what he says is the personal respondent’s “illegal” use of her camera to take photos of his driver’s licence. This allegation is addressed at paras. 12 and 18 of the Decision. The issue before this Tribunal was not whether the taking of the photos was “illegal”, but whether the applicant could provide some reasonable basis to support his allegation of discrimination in violation of the Code. For all of the reasons set out in the original Decision, I found that he could not do so.

12The applicant alleges that the personal respondent wrongly used police force to cover up her alleged “wrongdoing”. This allegation is addressed at paras. 14 and 20 of the original Decision. As stated in the original Decision, I find nothing in the involvement of the police in this matter that supports the applicant’s allegation of discrimination in violation of the Code. There is nothing in the applicant’s Reconsideration Request that causes me to change this view.

13Finally, the applicant requests that the personal respondent be ordered to pay him some amount of monetary compensation. As his Application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success, there is no basis for any such order.

14Having reviewed and considered the applicant’s submissions in support of his Request for Reconsideration, I do not find that the original Decision is in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure. Nor do I find that other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

15For all of the foregoing reasons, the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration is denied.