Appleton v. Artisan Co-operative Homes Inc., 2017 HRTO 898

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Karen Appleton

Applicant

-and-

Artisan Co-operative Homes Inc.

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Karen Appleton

Applicant

-and-

City of London, Housing Department

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Ronald Michael Appleton

Applicant

-and-

City of London, Housing Department

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri Price

Date: July 19, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 898

Indexed as: Appleton v. Artisan Co-operative Homes Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Karen Appleton and Michael Appleton, Applicants

Self-represented

1This is a Request for reconsideration of the Tribunal’s December 30, 2016 decision, 2016 HRTO 1700, dismissing these Applications on the basis that they had no reasonable prospect of success. In particular, following a summary hearing during which the applicants were given an opportunity to explain how they could prove their discrimination claims against the respondents, the Tribunal found that the applicants had no reasonable prospect of establishing that the respondents treated them in a distinct and disadvantage manner because of the Code grounds cited in the Applications.

2In January 25, 2017 correspondence to the Tribunal, Ms. Appleton indicated that she wished to request reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision on behalf of herself and Mr. Appleton. Ms. Appleton indicated that she could not open certain documents on her computer and intended to redo her reconsideration request forms once she received them by mail. To the best of my knowledge, no further forms or submissions have been received from the applicants since that time. Accordingly, this decision with respect to the applicants’ Request for reconsideration is based on the submissions in Ms. Appleton’s January 2017 correspondence.

3Section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), provides that the Tribunal may reconsider its decisions in accordance with its Rules.

4Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure is the Rule that identifies the circumstances in which the Tribunal may reconsider a decision. Rule 26.5 states that 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;

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;

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 has also issued a Practice Direction to provide guidance to the community on the Tribunal’s exercise of its reconsideration powers. The Practice Direction 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.

6In her January 2017 correspondence, Ms. Appleton indicates that she and Mr. Appleton wish to “appeal” the Tribunal’s decision dismissing their Applications. However, as noted above, reconsideration is not an appeal. Pursuant to s.45.7 of the Code, reconsideration may only be granted if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that there are grounds to do so pursuant to Rule 26.5 (a), (b), (c) or (d).

7In this case, it is not clear from Ms Appleton’s correspondence which, if any, of the circumstances identified in Rule 26.5 the applicants claim exist in the case at hand. In any event, based on the submissions provided, I am not satisfied that there are any grounds for the Tribunal to reconsider its decision pursuant to Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.

8Specifically, there is no basis to reconsider the decision pursuant to Rule 26.5(a), because the applicants do not identify any new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier. Rather, in her submissions, Ms Appleton largely repeats submissions that were previously made during the summary hearing. Ms Appleton also expresses disagreement with the Tribunal’s decision and frustration at a perceived inability to understand the Applications. However, the fact that an applicant disagrees with a decision of the Tribunal is not a basis for reconsideration.

9In the request for reconsideration, Ms Appleton also attempts to expand on submissions previously made and to repair perceived deficiencies in the case. For example, in the reconsideration request, Ms Appleton suggests that Mr. Appleton brought a discrimination claim against Artisan and attempts to expand on such claim. This is contrary to the Tribunal record and the position taken during the summary hearing. As noted in the Practice Direction, reconsideration is not an opportunity to repair perceived deficiencies in a case. In any event, the Request for reconsideration does not identify any new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier.

10Likewise, there is no basis to reconsider the decision pursuant to Rule 26.5(b) as the applicants both participated in and made submissions during the summary hearing.

11Nor do the applicants point to any conflict between the decision and established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure; or identify any other factors that outweigh the public interest in the finality of decisions (Rule 26.5 (c) and (d)).

12As explained in the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration, reconsideration is not available simply because a party disagrees with the Tribunal’s decision and it is not an opportunity for a party to reargue a case. As the applicants have failed to establish the existence of any of the criteria for reconsideration set out in Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, there is no basis for reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision. The Request for Reconsideration is denied accordingly.