Konesavarathan v. Middlesex London Health Unit, 2016 HRTO 232

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Kovarthanan Konesavarathan

Applicant

-and-

Middlesex London Health Unit

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw

Date: February 23, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 232

Indexed as: Konesavarathan v. Middlesex London Health Unit

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Kovarthanan Konesavarathan, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1On January 20, 2016, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, 2016 HRTO 86, refusing to add Western University as a respondent to this Application. On February 11, 2016, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the decision ("Request").

THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

2The applicant's reasons for the Request are:

a. The decision is in conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance; and

b. Other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

3More specifically, the applicant argues that I failed to consider his additional written submissions, filed in response to my request for any additional submissions from the parties.

the law

4Under 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.

5The Tribunal has issued Rules of Procedure, which govern 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). Rule 26 states in part:

26.1 Any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within (thirty) 30 days of the date of the decision.

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.

6The 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.

7As is evident from the above, reconsideration is a discretionary remedy. That is, while the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to reopen and reconsider its own decisions, it is not obliged to do so.

8The Tribunal also has stated in Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34, 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.

decision

9First, I agree with the applicant that the decision not to add the additional respondent is a final decision for the purposes of the Request, and I have addressed it in this manner.

10The applicant states I did not consider the additional submissions he filed at my request for any additional submissions the parties wished to provide. He argues that this shows differential treatment of him versus the respondent and proposed respondent, which is not allowed by the Tribunal's Rules.

11The applicant did indeed provide extensive additional submissions. However, I reviewed and considered these, and gave them the weight I considered appropriate having regard to the extent they were relevant to the issue I was required to decide. Accordingly, the applicant's submission is unfounded.

12In support of his submission that I did, or must have, paid inadequate attention to his submissions because he is self-represented, the applicant quoted from what appears to be general research on the experience and/or treatment of self-represented persons in the court system. This general study is of no assistance to the applicant, particularly in light of my finding above.

13With respect to the specific grounds upon which the applicant bases his Request, the applicant has provided nothing to show that my decision is in conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure and that the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance.

14The applicant also does not point to the existence of any other factors in this case that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

15Overall, the applicant clearly disagrees with my decision. However, he simply has attempted to re-argue his request for the addition of a respondent. The Request clearly is an attempt to appeal the decision not to add the additional respondent, which is not the purpose of the Request, as is set out in the Tribunal's Practice Decision on Reconsideration.

16As an aside, I also note the applicant believes there is a typographical error in the decision, but I do not believe there is.

17In sum, I find that the applicant has not established the existence of any new evidence pursuant to Rule 26.5(a) that would lead to a reconsideration of the Tribunal's Decision. The Request is denied.