Chowdhury v. Amaz Property Management, 2016 HRTO 411

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sharif Chowdhury Applicant

-and-

Amaz Property Management Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: March 31, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 411 Indexed as: Chowdhury v. Amaz Property Management

INTRODUCTION

1The purpose of this Reconsideration Decision is to address the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, 2016 HRTO 89. This Decision dismissed the Application on the basis that the applicant had abandoned his Application.

BACKGROUND

2The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on August 25, 2015. On October 23, 2015, the respondent filed a Response, which was delivered to the applicant on November 20, 2015. The applicant was advised that he could file a Reply on or before December 4, 2015. The applicant did not file a Reply.

3On December 21, 2015 the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) directing the applicant to provide a Reply on the respondent’s Response no later than 14 days from the date of the CAD. He was warned that if he failed to file the Reply by the required deadline the Tribunal might consider the failure to do so as an abandonment of the Application and dismiss the Application for that reason. He did not file a Reply or otherwise communicate with the Tribunal by the deadline (January 4, 2016) and on January 20, 2016, the Tribunal dismissed his Application as abandoned.

4On February 18, 2016, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision. He filed further documents on February 29, 2016. The basis of his Request is that there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier.

ANALYSIS

5Section 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.

6Rule 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 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 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.

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.

9In the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration he does not directly address the criteria for granting reconsideration as set out in Rule 26.5 above. His Request contains medical documentation. The first document appears to be a list of the medication he has been prescribed over the course of an indeterminate amount of time. The second appears to relate to a dental emergency that seems to have taken place on January 22, 2016, two days after my Decision dismissing his case was released. Neither explains why the applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal’s direction to provide a Reply by January 4, 2016.

10The applicant provided further documents at a later date about the applicant’s state of health related to the occupancy of his apartment. These are dated October 16 and November 24, 2014. There is no apparent connection between these and his Request for Reconsideration more than a year later.

11In addition, the applicant provides a list of the difficulties he has encountered in his life. He does not make the connection between these difficulties and his failure to file his Reply or otherwise communicate with the Tribunal in the period noted.

12The 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

13The Request for Reconsideration is denied.