Giannos v. Wilcox, 2016 HRTO 538

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Anthanasios Giannos Applicant

-and-

Alexandra Wilcox Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl Date: April 25, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 538 Indexed as: Giannos v. Wilcox

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Athanasios Giannos, Applicant Self-represented

Introduction

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”) on October 21, 2015.

2On November 13, 2015 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application (“NOID”) on the basis that the Application appears to be outside the Tribunal’s power to decide. The applicant was directed to respond to the issues raised in the NOID by no later than December 13, 2016. The NOID advised the applicant that failure to respond to the NOID may be considered an abandonment of the Application and it might be dismissed for that reason.

3The applicant responded to the NOID on December 4, 2015 with what he called “a final note”. In its Decision, 2015 HRTO 1687 the Tribunal found that the applicant’s allegations were outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to decide as there was no link to a Code ground.

4On April 8, 2016 the applicant requested a reconsideration of that Decision.

Decision

5Section 45.7 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”) provides the Tribunal with the authority to reconsider its decisions. Further to its power to make rules, the Tribunal has issued Rules governing Requests for Reconsideration. Most relevant to this Reconsideration Decision is rule 26 which states:

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

6I note that, on the basis of delay alone, the Tribunal may deny the Request for Reconsideration. See Liu v. Country Herbs, 2011 HRTO 1166.

7A Request for Reconsideration filed beyond the 30 day deadline will not be granted unless the Tribunal determines the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay. It is very difficult to read the applicant’s handwriting but he appears to indicate that the reason for the almost three months delay in filing his Request for Reconsideration was that his original Request for Reconsideration, unbeknown to the applicant, got lost in the mail and was never received by the Tribunal.

8Even if I were to accept that the applicant’s explanation for the delay provides a good faith reason for the delay I find that the grounds for seeking reconsideration do not meet the reconsideration criteria.

9Under 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.

10The Tribunal has issued Rules governing 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). Most relevant to this Decision is Rule 26 which states:

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.

11The 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.

12As 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.

13I find that the applicant has not met the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration.

14In support of his Request, the applicant essentially repeats allegations that are in his Application. A request for reconsideration is not an opportunity to restate or re-argue a position already advanced and considered.

15The applicant has not identified any new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier.

16There is nothing before me suggesting that the applicant was entitled to but did not receive notice of the proceeding or a hearing. In fact, I am satisfied that he did get notice of the proceeding following which he provided submissions as required by the NOID on December 4, 2015.

17I am not convinced that any findings made in the Decision are in conflict with established jurisprudence.

18The applicant also submits that the Tribunal relied on an irrelevant decision but fails to address how reliance on that decision conflicts with established Tribunal jurisprudence.

19In Sigrist, above, the Tribunal stated that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case. Once the parties 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. I find that the submissions in this Request amount to additional argument on issues already fully canvassed before the Tribunal.

20The Tribunal also stated in Sigrist that a “conflict with established jurisprudence or procedure” requires (at a minimum) that there be a settled understanding about the legal rules that apply, and a clear and surprising departure from those legal rules. While the applicant clearly disagrees with the conclusions of the Tribunal, I am satisfied that its submissions on this Request do not establish that the Tribunal’s Decision conflicts with established jurisprudence.

21The applicant claims that here are other factors that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions but he does not indicate any such factors.

22In sum, I find that the applicant has not established the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26 that would lead to reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision.

23The Request is denied.