Guillermo Flores v. The Corporation of the Town of Oakville and James Ball, 2016 HRTO 418

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Guillermo Flores

Applicant

-and-

The Corporation of the Town of Oakville and James Ball

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: April 1, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 418 Indexed as: Flores v. Oakville (Town)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Guillermo Flores, Applicant

Self-represented

INTRODUCTION

1The purpose of this Reconsideration Decision is to address the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, 2016 HRTO 70. The Decision dismissed the Application on the basis that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success in that his allegations do not constitute discrimination.

BACKGROUND

2This Application, filed on January 26, 2015, alleges discrimination with respect to goods, services and facilities because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

3Following a summary hearing, which took place on December 3, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Decision on January 15, 2016 dismissing the Application on a preliminary basis because it had no reasonable prospect of success. The Tribunal also denied the applicant’s request to amend his Application.

4On February 14, 2016, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision challenging the Tribunal’s Decision to dismiss his Application, but not the decision on the Request to amend.

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.

The applicant relies on Rule 26.5 (c) and (d) in his Request for Reconsideration.

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 asserts that the Tribunal required “intent to discriminate” in coming to the conclusion that his allegations of dangerous conditions at the respondent facility did not constitute discrimination. I would note that, at no point, did I indicate that intention is a required element. I would agree with the applicant’s understanding of the law that it is not necessary for an applicant to establish “intent” in a discrimination case.

10The remaining portion of the applicant’s submissions repeat the argument made during the summary hearing. As the Tribunal has made clear in its Practice Direction, reconsideration is not an opportunity to reargue a case.

11Although it is apparent that the applicant disagrees with my Decision, he 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

12The Request for Reconsideration is denied.