HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Maria Rots
Applicant
-and-
City of Toronto
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: David Muir
Indexed as: Rots v. Toronto (City)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Maria Rots, Applicant
Self-represented
Introduction
1On June 2, 2016, the Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, 2016 HRTO 747, dismissing the Application. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision.
BACKGROUND
2The Tribunal’s Decision found that the Application must be dismissed because it had no reasonable prospect of success.
THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
3The Request for Reconsideration was filed on November 14, 2016. In her Request the applicant makes reference to events in September and November 2016 which may be allegations of unfair treatment by some unidentified organization but bears no apparent relation to the Decision or the reasons for its dismissal. I note that this Request appears to be identical to one filed in relation to Tribunal file 2015-21032-I
4The respondent was not called upon to respond to the 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 made 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
7This Request is significantly out of time. As the Tribunal has held on numerous occasions a Request for Reconsideration filed beyond the 30 day deadline will not be granted unless the Tribunal determines that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay. See Kamis v. 1903397 Ontario Inc., 2015 HRTO 1161.
8The applicant offers no real reason for the delay of 5 months in filing this Request. Indeed the impetus for the Request appears to be new complaints about incidents occurring in the Fall of this year. The applicant does state on the Form 20 in explaining the delay - the “restriction was given more than one month after the date of the decision” – a reference perhaps to an incident unfavourable to the applicant occurring in September or October of 2016.
9As such there is no reasonable explanation for the delay and the Request is denied for that reason.
10If I were required to consider the merits of the Request I would also dismiss it. As indicated above the impetus for the Request was incidents that the applicant complains of in September and October 2016. Whether or not these are new incidents of alleged discrimination is entirely unclear but they bear no relation to the Decision or the reasons for its dismissal being the applicant’s apparent abandonment of this Application.
11For these reasons as well I would dismiss this Request because it meets none of the requirements of Rule 26.5 which are as follows:
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.
12Although the applicant relies on 26.5 (a) the new facts she relies on are not new in the sense contemplated by the Rule.
13The Request is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 16th day of December, 2016.
“Signed By”
David Muir
Vice-chair