HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Farhan Hossein
Applicant
-and-
Anna Towlson
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren
Indexed as: Hossein v. Towlson
1In his Application, the applicant alleged that the respondent,who the applicant had retained as his legal representative in a family law matter involving issues of custody and access, had discriminated against him because of his race, colour, place of origin, sex and age contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990 c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”).
2The allegations the applicant made in his Application were based on two comments that the applicant alleges the respondent had made to him during the course of delivering legal service.
3The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether all or some of the allegation were beyond the Tribunal’s jurisdiction as they had occurred more that one year prior to the date the Application was filed and to determine whether the applicant had a reasonable prospect of demonstrating that the actions or comments of the respondent breached his Code rights.
4After hearing submissions from the applicant and the respondent, I issued Decision 2017 HRTO 1246. I found that the Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to hear one of the allegations. I also found that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of demonstrating that his rights as protected by the Code were breached when the respondent made the comments he alleged.
5The applicant has filed a Request for Reconsideration of Decision 2017 HRTO 1246.
ANALYSIS
6In Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34, the Tribunal stated that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case. Once the Tribunal has made a decision in a case, parties are entitled to treat the matter as closed, subject to limited exceptions.
7The circumstances in which a Request for Reconsideration may be granted are set out in Rule 26.5.
8A 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.
9The 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.
10Reconsideration is a discretionary remedy. That is, while the Tribunal has the power to reconsider its own decisions, it is not obliged to do so. It may decide when reconsideration is advisable, both through the consideration of rules setting out conditions for the exercise of its discretion, and through the application of its discretion on a case-by-case basis.
11The applicant has indicated that it is his position that Decision 2017 HRTO 1246 is in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure and the purposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance. He also submits that other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.
12Most of what the applicant has provided as details to support the Request, do no more than repeat or expand on the arguments that he made during the summary hearing. He argues that in considering whether the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to hear the first allegation that had occurred more than one year prior to the date he filed the Application, the Tribunal should have found the incidents to be a series of incidents. The applicant does not provide any reasons why the decision finding that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction is contrary to established jurisprudence or procedure.
13In support of his argument that my finding that he had no reasonable prospect of demonstrating that his Code rights had been breached are contrary to Tribunal jurisprudence, the applicant provides excerpts from a decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal and the Children’s Law Reform Act. As I explained to the parties during the summary hearing, the Tribunal has no power to apply and interpret family law legislation and so determining whether the respondent’s comments were contrary to family law jurisprudence or legislation was not within my power. The applicant has not demonstrated how the Decision is contrary to Tribunal jurisprudence or procedure.
14The applicant has not detailed factors that outweigh the interest in maintaining the finality of the Decision.
15It appears that the reason that the applicant filed the Request is because he disagrees with the Tribunal’s Decision. As I have indicated above, reconsideration is not an opportunity to reargue the Application.
ORDER
16The Request for Reconsideration is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 20th day of November, 2017.
”Signed by”_______________________
Laurie Letheren
Vice-chair