Hicks v. Mr. Rooter Plumbing (Ottawa), 2017 HRTO 1094

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Anthony Hicks

Applicant

-and-

Mr. Rooter Plumbing (Ottawa)

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: August 22, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 1094

Indexed as: Hicks v. Mr. Rooter Plumbing (Ottawa)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Anthony Hicks, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1On July 17, 2017, the Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, 2017 HRTO 876, dismissing the Application.

2The applicant seeks reconsideration of the Decision to dismiss his Application.

THE LAW

3Under 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.

4The 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.

5The 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.

6As 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.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

7In his Request the applicant indicated that the reason for his Request were the factors identified in Rule 26.5 (c) and (d).

8In his Request the applicant makes no meaningful submissions that bear on the identified grounds for reconsideration. The Tribunal’s Decision dismisses the Application on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success. The applicant’s submissions essentially repeat the allegations he set out in his Application. This is not relevant to the Request. While it is evident that the applicant disagrees with the Tribunal’s Decision dismissing the Application, he has presented no basis for exercising my discretion to reconsider my earlier Decision.

order

9The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.