Alahdab v. ATD Contracting Services Inc., 2016 HRTO 1619

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Anas Alahdab

Applicant

-and-

ATD Contracting Services Inc.

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart

Date: December 15, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1619

Indexed as: Alahdab v. ATD Contracting Services Inc.

1This Decision addresses a Request for Reconsideration filed by the applicant in relation to the Tribunal’s Decision 2016 HRTO 797 dated June 13, 2016, which dismissed the Application due to the applicant’s failure to appear for the hearing.

2On July 11, 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(d).

10The sole basis for the applicant’s Reconsideration Request is that he “was not aware that there was a meeting that [he] was supposed to attend on June 13, 2016”. This quite frankly is hard to fathom.

11The applicant was sent a Notice of Hearing dated February 18, 2016 advising him that the hearing was scheduled for June 13, 2016 commencing at 9:30 a.m. and providing the location for the hearing. The Notice of Hearing expressly states under the heading “Failure to attend the hearing”:

If you do not attend the hearing after receiving proper notice, the HRTO may proceed in your absence (if you are a respondent or intervener) or dismiss the Application as abandoned (if you are the applicant).

12On May 13, 2016, I issued a Case Assessment Direction to the parties reminding them of the hearing scheduled for June 13, 2016, and addressing their failure to comply with their pre-hearing obligations, including filing documents and witness statements for the hearing. On May 30, 2016, the applicant responded by filing his documents for the hearing.

13In view of this, it is difficult for me to understand how the applicant can say that he did not know he needed to attend the hearing. In my view, this statement quite simply lacks all credibility.

14As a result, I find that no 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.