Deslauriers v. Providence Care, 2017 HRTO 1112

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Claude Deslauriers

Applicant

-and-

Providence Care and Dale Kenney

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Khurana Date: August 28, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 1112 Indexed as: Deslauriers v. Providence Care

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Claude Deslauriers, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1The Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, 2017 HRTO 688, dismissing the Application as untimely. I found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable good faith explanation for his failure to file the Application within the one-year time frame set out in s.34(1) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended. The applicant asked the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision. This Request was denied with reasons in 2017 HRTO 925 issued on July 21, 2017.

2On July 28, 2017, the applicant filed a second Request for Reconsideration ("Request").

3The Request is dismissed.

4The Request appears to refer to the same issues raised by the applicant in his first Request for Reconsideration. Together with his Request, the applicant appends several pages of materials that appear to be sent to "Chief, Kingston", relating to recent issues that have arisen at his residence, including allegations that individuals were smoking drugs on his floor, breaking into his apartment and monitoring his movements and conversations in his apartment. These materials do not appear to be related to the applicant's Request.

5The Tribunal's Rule 26.7.1 provides as follows:

26.7.1 Where a Request for Reconsideration has been determined, the Tribunal will not consider a subsequent Request for Reconsideration of the same decision, absent exceptional circumstances. The Tribunal need not give reasons for a decision not to consider a subsequent Request.

6The applicant has not identified any exceptional circumstances in his second Request and accordingly it is dismissed.

7While the applicant has sent the Tribunal materials identifying multiple concerns with his place of residence, these are not before the Tribunal.

ORDER

8For all of the above reasons, the applicant's Request for Reconsideration is denied.