HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Anthony Hicks

Applicant

-and-

Goodlife Fitness Centres Inc.

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: June 21, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 839

Indexed as: Hicks v. Goodlife Fitness Centres Inc.

1The applicant has requested a reconsideration of Decision 2016 HRTO 687.

2Under 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.

[3] Rule 26 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure 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 states in part:

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.

[5] The reasons provided in the Request for Reconsideration of the Decision are essentially that the applicant does not agree with the result. In addition, he states that he had asked that a witness be summonsed.

[6] The witness was a lawyer who the applicant had retained to represent him in his dealings with the respondent. The applicant believes that this lawyer was part of a conspiracy designed to deprive him of his legal rights, among other things. The applicant refers to an email he sent to the Registrar in January 2016, asking how he could go about obtaining a summons to require the attendance of the lawyer.

[7] The applicant did not raise this concern during the several days of hearings that were scheduled to hear the evidence about the Application.

[8] While I appreciate that the applicant does not agree with the findings in the Decision, this is not a basis for reconsidering the Decision. The fact that the applicant asked about a process to summons a witness is not a reason to reconsider either since the request was not renewed during the hearing.

[9] The Request for Reconsideration is denied.