Katherine Lin v. Shenglan Yong, 2016 HRTO 241

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Katherine Lin

Applicant

-and-

Shenglan Yong

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: February 24, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 241

Indexed as: Lin v. Yong

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Katherine Lin, Applicant

Self-represented

1The applicant requests Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision of October 16, 2015, 2015 HRTO 1380, dismissing this Application for being outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

2The circumstances in which Reconsideration may be granted are set out in Rule 26.5:

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.

3The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration begins with the following statements:

Decisions of the Tribunal are generally considered final and are not subject to appeal. However, parties may request that the Tribunal reconsider a final decision it has made. Reconsideration is a discretionary remedy; there is no right to have a decision reconsidered by the Tribunal. Generally, the Tribunal will only reconsider a decision where it finds that there are compelling and extraordinary circumstances for doing so and where these circumstances outweigh the public interest in finality of orders and decisions.

Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of its case.

4The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration (the “Request”) on October 26, 2015, and relies upon Rule 26.5(c) and (d).

5The applicant submitted that the facts alleged in her Application are related to the Code and submitted that the adjudicator, this writer, “tried to change the meaning of discrimination”. The applicant asked rhetorically “aren’t the harassing, bulling (sic) and abusing harassment and discrimination?” The application also filed a submission setting out some of her personal background and repeating the narrative to the Application verbatim. The applicant also made submissions setting out her view that the Tribunal did not deal with some of her earlier complaints properly. The applicant asserted that the respondent violated her human rights and submitted that her Application should be allowed to continue.

6The applicant did not indicate how the Decision is in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure and how the proposed Reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance. The applicant also did not describe the other factors that exist that would outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal’s decision. Consequently, the applicant has not met the criteria for Reconsideration under either Rule 26.5(c) or (d). This is sufficient to dispose of the Request for Reconsideration, but it is appropriate to comment briefly on what is required to establish a violation of the Code. The Tribunal does not have the power to deal with or remedy general allegations of unfairness. See for example: Forde v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1389. The Tribunal only has the power to deal with discrimination, harassment or reprisal that is prohibited by the Code. Discrimination in the legal sense requires proof that the respondents' adverse treatment of the applicant is based, at least in part, on the applicant’s race, gender, disability or other prohibited ground under the Code. In other words, the prohibited ground must be connected to the adverse treatment. In this case the applicant alleges that the respondent treated her unfairly and conspired with her landlord to have her evicted. Assuming the allegations to be true, it appears the respondent treated the applicant very poorly. The applicant, however, provided no information that would connect this poor treatment to the Code grounds she cited: ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin and reprisal. As a result, there is no connection to the Code and the matter falls outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

7The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.