Buono v. Catholic District School Board of Eastern Ontario, 2009 HRTO 671

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Pina Buono

Applicant

-and-

Catholic District School Board of Eastern Ontario

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Keene

Date: May 21, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 671

Indexed as: Buono v. Catholic District School Board of Eastern Ontario

1On April 24, 2009, the Tribunal issued a Decision, 2009 HRTO 492, dismissing the Application.

2On May 5, 2009, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision, as provided for in section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”).

3Sections 45.7 and 45.8 of the Code provide the Tribunal with authority to reconsider its decisions while confirming the finality of the Tribunal’s decisions:

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.

45.8 Subject to section 45.6 of this Act, section 21.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Tribunal rules, a decision of the Tribunal is final and not subject to appeal and shall not be altered or set aside in an application for judicial review or in any other proceeding unless the decision is patently unreasonable.

4Further to its power to make rules, the Tribunal has issued rules governing Requests for Reconsideration as well as a Practice Direction to provide guidance on the Tribunal’s exercise of its reconsideration powers (Practice Direction #4 reconsideration).

5Relevant to this Decision is the following Rule:

25.5. 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;

(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.

6Practice Direction #4 states, in part:

Decisions of the Tribunal are generally considered final and are not subject to appeal. However, parties may request that the Tribunal reconsider a final decision it has made. 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.

DECISION

7The applicant asserts that factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

8The Application at issue here alleged that the removal of the applicant’s name from a supply teachers’ roster was a reprisal against the applicant for the purposes of s. 8 of the Code. However, the Application did not explain how any of the events described in the Application were linked to attempts to claim or enforce rights under the Code. Moreover, the applicant did not identify any ground of discrimination or basis upon which she alleged that the Code was violated.

9In her submissions on her Request for reconsideration, the applicant refers to the preamble to the Code, in which the dignity and worth of every person is recognised. She emphasises her view that the action taken by her employer was an attack on her dignity, honour and reputation. She reiterates that she was treated differently from two other teachers, and she regards this as discrimination.

10The applicant does not allege that the decision she disputes was taken because of an attempt on her part “to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act”. The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into claims of unfairness outside the areas and grounds listed in the Code.

11I am not satisfied that any of the conditions listed in Rule 25.5 exist in this case. The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.