HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Emmanuel Abegunrin
Applicant
-and-
Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission, Antonio Ruberto, Nicole Feldmann, Gary Soper, Helia Ralph, Ave Lethbridge, Anthony Haines and Steve Voulgaris
Respondents
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl
Indexed as: Abegunrin v. Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Emmanuel Abegunrin, Applicant
Self-represented
Introduction
1This is a Request for Reconsideration (“Request”) by the applicant in a Contravention of Settlement Application that was allowed but with no order as to remedy: see 2016 HRTO 1471. The Tribunal’s Decision found that while there was a breach of settlement it found the breach was a de minimus breach and it refused to order a remedy.
analysis
2Section 45.7(1) of the Code provides that any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may request that the Tribunal reconsider a final decision in accordance with the Tribunal rules.
3Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that 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 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.
4The Tribunal has also issued a Practice Direction on Reconsideration to provide guidance to the community on the nature of the reconsideration process. The Practice Direction states, in part:
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.
5As is evident from the above, reconsideration is a discretionary remedy. That is, while the Tribunal has the power to reconsider its own decisions, it is not obliged to do so. It may decide when reconsideration is advisable, both through the consideration of rules setting out conditions for the exercise of its discretion, and through the application of its discretion on a case-by-case basis.
6In the applicant’s Request, he indicates that the reason why he is making the Request is the Decision is in conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance.
7In the details section of the Request, the applicant does not directly address how the Decision is in conflict with established jurisprudence or what factors exist the may outweigh the public interest in the finality of the Decision.
8The applicant’s Request contains a number of allegations about my misinterpretation of the Code and my potential bias. He takes issue with a number of my evidentiary findings and some of my procedural rulings and makes further arguments to support his Contravention of Settlement allegations. He complains that he was misled by his mediator.
9It is apparent that the reason the applicant has filed the Request is that he disagrees with the Decision I made. As I have indicated above, reconsideration is neither an appeal nor an opportunity to reargue a case.
10The applicant has not met the criteria set out in Rule 26.5 that must be satisfied in order for the Tribunal to grant a reconsideration request.
order
11The Request for Reconsideration is denied.
12Dated at Toronto, this 21st day of December, 2016.
“Signed By”
Keith Brennenstuhl
Vice-chair