Wayne Ferron v. 1580684 Ontario Inc. cob Tim Horton's Restaurant #2491, 2016 HRTO 829

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Wayne Ferron

Applicant

-and-

1580684 Ontario Inc. cob Tim Horton's Restaurant #2491

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: June 20, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 829 Indexed as: Ferron v. Tim Hortons's Restaurant #2491

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Wayne Ferron, Applicant

Self-represented

1The applicant requests Reconsideration of the Tribunal's Decision of March 4, 2016, 2016 HRTO 291 dismissing this Application for abandonment.

2The circumstances in which Reconsideration may be granted are set out in Rule 26.5:

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.

3The Tribunal's Practice Direction on Reconsideration begins with the following statements:

Decisions of the Tribunal are generally considered final and are not subject to appeal. However, parties may request that the Tribunal reconsider a final decision it has made. Reconsideration is a discretionary remedy; there is no right to have a decision reconsidered by the Tribunal. Generally, the Tribunal will only reconsider a decision where it finds that there are compelling and extraordinary circumstances for doing so and where these circumstances outweigh the public interest in finality of orders and decisions.

Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of its case.

4The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration (the "Request") on December 14, 2015 and relies upon Rules 26.5(b), (c) and (d).

5The Tribunal dismissed the Application after the applicant failed to respond to a Case Assessment Direction, dated February 10, 2016, that directed him to comply with his pre-hearing disclosure obligations. In the Case Assessment Direction, the Tribunal warned the applicant that the Application could be dismissed for abandonment if he failed to comply with this direction or if he failed to communicate with the Tribunal by February 19, 2016. The applicant did not file the required documents or contact the Tribunal by the deadline and the Tribunal dismissed the Application.

6The applicant submitted that he did not receive a Notice of Intent to Dismiss ("NOID") the Application or a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing. The Tribunal sends a Notice of Intent to Dismiss immediately after an Application is filed if it appears that the Application is outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction. There was no reason to send a NOID to the applicant in this case. The Tribunal did not send the applicant a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing, but it did send him a Notice of Hearing, dated November 5, 2015, that set the hearing of this matter for March 18, 2016. The Tribunal sent the Notice of Hearing to the applicant using the e-mail address he used to communicate with the Tribunal, including to file his Request for Consideration. The Tribunal sent the Case Assessment Direction of February 10, 2016 to the applicant using the same e-mail address. I note that the applicant does not assert that he did not receive this Case Assessment Direction. The applicant submitted that he was waiting for the hearing on March 18, 2016 to articulate his oral arguments. This statement indicates that he was aware of the hearing date and that he received the Notice of Hearing. In these circumstances, I find that the applicant had notice of the hearing on March 18, 2016 and also received the Case Assessment Direction of February 10, 2016. Consequently, there is no proper basis for concluding that the applicant did not have notice of the hearing or that he was unaware that the Application could be dismissed if he did not comply with the Case Assessment Direction.

7Accordingly, I find that the applicant has not met the criteria under Rule 26.5(b). The applicant's submissions did not describe how the Tribunal's Decision is in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure or identify factors that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

8The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.