Barua v. University of Toronto, 2010 HRTO 159

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sona Barua

Applicant

-and-

Governing Council of the University of Toronto and David Naylor

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: January 25, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 159

Indexed as: Barua v. University of Toronto

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Sona Barua, Applicant ) On His Own Behalf

1On December 10, 2009, I issued a Decision, 2009 HRTO 2148, which dismissed the applicant’s Application on the basis that it was not filed with the Tribunal within the one-year deadline set out in section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), and I was not satisfied that his delay in filing his Application was incurred in good faith.

2On or about December 24, 2009, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision.

3Section 45.7(1) of the Code provides that any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may request that the Tribunal reconsider its decision in accordance with the Tribunal rules.

4Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure 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; 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.

5These four circumstances are also set out in section 2 of the Request for Reconsideration Form, which states: “Please check the reasons why you are making this Request for Reconsideration. Check all that apply.” The applicant checked off the boxes for a) and b).

6With respect to a), the applicant submits that the Decision was based on wrong information. In support of his submission, he attached letters from the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario dated September 21, 2007 and May 14, 2009, respectively. However, he did not explain, and I do not see, what new facts or evidence there are in the letters that could potentially be determinative of the case. He also did not explain why the letters could not reasonably have been obtained earlier.

7With respect to b), the applicant did not submit that he failed to receive notice of the hearing scheduled for December 1, 2009. In fact, he attended and fully participated in the hearing.

8The remainder of the applicant’s submissions focuses on his belief that the respondents discriminated against him, and his belief that he should have been allowed to proceed to a hearing of the merits of his Application. He also submitted that the respondents violated his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act, 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11, and that the Charter is more important than the Tribunal’s Decision.

9Reconsideration is not available simply because a party disagrees with the Tribunal’s decision, and it is not an opportunity for a party to reargue the case.

10The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.