A. P. v. Toronto District School Board, 2010 HRTO 1484

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

A. P. by his litigation guardian, G. P.

Applicant

-and-

Toronto District School Board

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Janice Sandomirsky

Date: July 7, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1484

Indexed as: A. P. v. Toronto District School Board

INTRODUCTION

1The applicant filed an Application on April 24, 2009, under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The respondent filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking early dismissal of the Application on the basis of delay, section 45.1, issue estoppel and abuse of process. The parties filed written submissions and also made oral submissions at a preliminary issue hearing held on March 8, 2010. A decision dismissing the Application on the basis of delay was released on April 14, 2010 (2010 HRTO 818).

2On May 12, 2010, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision under section 45.7 of the Code which provides that:

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.

3The Tribunal has issued rules governing reconsideration requests. Rule 25 of the Transitional Rules provides, in part:

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.

4The Tribunal also has a Practice Direction on Reconsideration which emphasizes that reconsideration is a discretionary remedy and the Tribunal will only reconsider a decision where it finds there are compelling and extraordinary circumstances for doing so and where those circumstances outweigh the public interest in finality of the decision. The Practice Direction further notes that:

Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of its case.

5In this case, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration on the basis that the decision is in conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance. In support of the request, the applicant reviewed the basis of the complaint and argued that there was no delay in filing the human rights claim. He also attached an excerpt from a paper presented at an Ontario Bar Association Institute of Continuing Education on February 5, 2007, on expulsions under the Education Act, excerpts from the Education Act, and an article from the Toronto Star, dated June 6, 2009, on school suspensions, exclusions and expulsions.

6All of this information goes to the substance of the applicant’s complaint. Reconsideration is not an opportunity for a party to reargue the case, nor is it available simply because a party disagrees with the decision. As noted in the Tribunal’s Practice Direction quoted above, reconsideration is a discretionary remedy and the Tribunal will only reconsider a decision where it finds that there are compelling and extraordinary circumstances which outweigh the public interest in the finality of orders and decisions.

7After reviewing the applicant’s request for reconsideration, I am not satisfied that he has met any of the criteria described in Rule 26 for granting a Request for Reconsideration.

8For these reasons the Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.