Puharich v. Hamilton (City), 2016 HRTO 526

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Stanka Puharich Applicant

-and-

City of Hamilton Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: April 21, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 526

Indexed as: Puharich v. Hamilton (City)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Stanka Puharich, Applicant

Dushica Puharic, Representative

Introduction

1The purpose of this Reconsideration Decision is to address the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, 2015 HRTO 1401, which dismissed the Application.

BACKGROUND

2On July 2, 2015, the applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), which alleged that the respondent discriminated against her with respect to services because of disability and age.

3On August 14, 2015, the Tribunal’s Registrar issued the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”), which informed her that the Application appears to be outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

4On August 20, 2015, the applicant filed written submissions in response to the NOID, which argued that her Application should not be dismissed.

5On October 21, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Decision, which dismissed the Application on the basis that it is plain and obvious that the Application is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

6On November 16, 2015, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision.

ANALYSIS

7Section 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.

8Rule 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.

9The 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:

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.

10In her Request for Reconsideration, the applicant indicated that the Tribunal’s Decision should be reconsidered in accordance with Rule 26.5 a), b) and d). However, in her submissions in support of her Request, she did not explain how his Request falls within the criteria set out in Rule 26.5 a), b) and d). Instead, she essentially repeated the same statements and arguments that she made in her Application and her written submissions in response to the NOID. Reconsideration is not available simply because a party disagrees with the Tribunal’s Decision, and it is not an opportunity for a party to reargue the case.

ORDER

11The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.