Chen v. Del Property Management Inc., 2016 HRTO 175

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Hsing Yang Chen Applicant

-and-

Del Property Management Inc. Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren Date: February 8, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 175 Indexed as: Chen v. Del Property Management Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Hsing Yang Chen, Applicant Self-represented

Introduction

1The applicant seeks reconsideration of the Decision 2015 HRTO 1512 (the "Decision").

2In the Decision, the Application was dismissed after the Tribunal determined that the actions of the respondent were not discriminatory. The applicant had not established that the respondent's actions in addressing the applicant's noise complaints were unfair or had an adverse impact on him because of his disability.

3In his Request for Reconsideration (the Request), the applicant states the reasons for the Request are that other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

4I find that the applicant has not demonstrated that his Request meets any of the criteria in Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure ("Rules") that would allow me to grant a reconsideration of the Decision.

ANALYSIS

5In 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 Tribunal has made a decision in a case, parties are entitled to treat the matter as closed, subject to limited exceptions.

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

7The 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.

8As 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.

9The applicant provided detailed reasons in support of his claim that other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions. However, those reasons do no more than repeat the evidence that was presented at the hearing or re-state the applicant's interpretation of the facts and the submissions he made at the hearing.

10The applicant's reasons do not present any factors that outweigh the interest in maintaining the finality of the Decision.

11The applicant states he filed the Request because he disagrees with the Tribunal's Decision. As I have indicated above, reconsideration is not an opportunity to reargue a case.

ORDER

12The Request for Reconsideration is denied.