Perron v. Conseil Scolaire de District Catholique des Aurores Boréales, 2009 HRTO 1945

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jacques Perron

Complainant

-and-

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Commission

-and-

Yvonne Monto

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N :

Jacques Perron

Complainant

-and-

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Commission

-and-

Conseil Scolaire de District Catholique des Aurores Boréales and Roger LePage

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: November 16, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1945

Indexed as: Perron v. Conseil Scolaire de District Catholique des Aurores Boréales

1On August 10, 2009, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, 2009 HRTO 1228, in these complaints, removing three of the six respondents: 1) Claire Vachon who was legal counsel for the employer, the Conseil Scolaire de District Catholique des Aurores Boréales (the “Board”); 2) l’Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco ontariens (the “union”); and 3) Rachelle Chrétien, the union representative. Among the factors considered by the Tribunal in the decision to remove Claire Vachon was the Board’s position that it would take responsibility for her actions. That Interim Decision also found that the complaint against the union and Ms Chrétien did not raise any matter that falls within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

2As part of his Request for Reconsideration, the complainant asks the Tribunal, in essence, to add Victoria Reaume as a respondent. Ms. Reaume is counsel for the union and Rachelle Chrétien. Ms. Reaume has never been a party in these proceedings and the Interim decision did not deal with whether she should be added as a respondent. As such, this is not a matter which can be dealt with as part of a Request for Reconsideration.

THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

3The Request for Reconsideration (the “Request”), reiterates the allegations against Ms. Vachon and Ms. Chrétien as set out in the complaint and submissions from both the complainant and the Commission prior to the Interim Decision. It also states that the complainant doubts that the Board fully appreciates the financial implications of taking responsibility for the alleged discrimination by Ms. Vachon. The applicant attaches copies of various correspondence, which I have reviewed.

DECISION WITH RESPECT TO CLAIRE VACHON

4Under section 45.7 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (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.

5The 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. Rule 98 permits any party to request reconsideration within 30 days of a final decision. Rule 102 states the following:

102. 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;

(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 and orders.

6The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration states the following:

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.

7As is evident from the above, reconsideration is a discretionary remedy. While the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to reopen and reconsider its own decisions, it is not obliged to do so.

8In his submissions, the applicant has not addressed the criteria in Rule 102. Assuming that the decision to remove Ms. Vachon and Ms. Chrétien as respondents was a final decision for which a request for reconsideration is available, I find that the submissions in this Request amount to either additional or a repeat of argument on issues already canvassed by the Tribunal. Neither the applicant’s submissions nor any of the material he has attached, establish the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 102 that would lead to reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision.

9The Request is denied.