Zhang v. The Guarantee Company of North America, 2016 HRTO 623

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Yuli Zhang

Applicant

-and-

The Guarantee Company of North America

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: May 9, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 623

Indexed as: Zhang v. The Guarantee Company of North America

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Yuli Zhang, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1The purpose of this Reconsideration Decision is to address the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, 2015 HRTO 1534, which dismissed the Application.

BACKGROUND

2On January 22, 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 her race.

3On March 9, 2015, the respondent filed a Response, which requested, among other things, that the Application be dismissed on a preliminary basis because it is untimely.

4The statutory deadline for filing an application with the Tribunal and the circumstances under which a late application will be accepted are set out in subsections 34(1) and (2) of the Code:

34. (1) If a person believes that any of his or her rights under Part I have been infringed, the person may apply to the Tribunal for an order under section 45.2,

(a) within one year after the incident to which the application relates; or

(b) if there was a series of incidents, within one year after the last incident in the series.

(2) A person may apply under subsection (1) after the expiry of the time limit under that subsection if the Tribunal is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay.

5On April 23, 2015, the applicant filed a Reply, which denied that her Application is untimely.

6Both parties subsequently filed further written submissions addressing the timeliness issue.

7On November 13, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Decision, which dismissed the Application as outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because it was filed outside the one-year time limit in s. 34(1) of the Code, and the applicant did not establish that her delay in filing the Application was incurred in good faith.

8On December 7, 2015, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision.

ANALYSIS

9Section 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.

10Rule 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.

11The 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.

12In her Request for Reconsideration, the applicant indicated that the Tribunal’s Decision should be reconsidered in accordance with Rule 26.5 a) and c). Specifically, she maintained that her Application was filed in a timely manner, and referred to two Decisions by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Ontario Court of Appeal, which she was a party to and involve many of the same facts as in her Application.

13In essence, the applicant is repeating the same arguments that she made prior to the Tribunal’s Decision, referring to the same two Court Decisions that she had referred to prior to the Tribunal’s Decision, and arguing that the Decision dismissing her Application was wrong. 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.

14The applicant has not pointed to new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier.

15I also disagree that the Tribunal’s Decision is in conflict with established jurisprudence, and that the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance.

16Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the Tribunal’s Decision should be reconsidered in accordance with Rule 26.5 a) and c).

ORDER

17The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.