HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Muntaha Hannona
Applicant
-and-
Paul. S. Pollock Enterprises Ltd. o/a Canadian Tire Store 006
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Hannona v. Paul S. Pollock Ent
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Muntaha Hannona, Applicant
Self-represented
INTRODUCTION
1The Tribunal issued Decision 2016 HRTO 283 dismissing the Application. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision.
2The Tribunal’s Decision dismissed the Application on the basis that the applicant had not established that the respondent had violated her rights under the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990 c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
3The 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.
4The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration includes the following statement:
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.
5As 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. It may decide when reconsideration is advisable, both through the promulgation of rules setting out conditions for the exercise of its discretion, and through the application of its discretion on a case-by-case basis.
In the Request for Reconsideration, the applicant provides the following reasons why the Tribunal should reconsider its Decision:
a. There are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier; and
b. Other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.
6The respondent was not called upon to respond to the Request.
Decision
7The applicant takes issue with the fact that permitted certain individuals to appear on behalf of the respondent. At the hearing I questioned the representatives of the respondent to determine if they had instructions to appear on behalf of the respondent. Both individuals advised that they were directly in contact with the owner and could obtain instructions from the respondent during the hearing. I permitted Mr. Levesque to represent the respondent at the hearing but did advise him that in the future there are Rules that govern the legal representation of corporations at a hearing. However, this is not a basis to reconsider the Decision.
8I have reviewed the applicant’s submissions. I am of the view that the applicant is attempting to re-argue her case. She is dissatisfied with the findings of fact that I made in the Decision however, that is not a reason for the Tribunal to reconsider the Decision.
9The applicant alleges that there are new facts which could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier but in fact all of this information could have been obtained earlier. Further, this information would not change the result in this case. Though the applicant also asserts that this case raises matters of general or public importance in my view it does not.
10The applicant has not satisfied me that there is any basis to reconsider the Decision.
11The request to reconsider is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 20^th^ day of June, 2016.
“signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair