minicounsel

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: Sherry Liang

Date: August 12, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1668

Indexed As: Perron v. Monto

[1] By Decision dated June 23, 2010, 2010 HRTO 1411, the Tribunal dismissed Tribunal file Number HR-1820-08, a complaint against the Conseil Scolaire de District Catholique des Aurores Boréales (the Board) and Roger LePage.

[2] Further to the Tribunal’s direction of that date, the Commission has stated that it does not intend to proceed with the complaint against the Board and Roger LePage as if it were an application under section 35 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

[3] The complainant has made a Request for Reconsideration of the Decision of June 23. It is not necessary for the other parties to respond to the Request.

[4] Sections 45.7 and 45.8 of the Code provide the Tribunal with explicit 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.

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.

[5] The Tribunal has issued rules governing Requests for Reconsideration as well as a Practice Direction to provide guidance to the community on the Tribunal’s exercise of its reconsideration powers (Practice Direction on Reconsideration).

[6] Most relevant to this decision are the following provisions of the Rules of Practice:

98. Any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within 30 days of the date of the decision.

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.

[7] The Practice Direction on Reconsideration states, in part:

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.

[8] The complainant states that he is in complete disagreement with the decision of the Tribunal. He submits that the decision is contrary to the relevant law, and cites the decision in Free v. Municipality of Magnetwan, 2010 HRTO 179. The complainant makes submissions on why section 34(11) should not bar his complaint against the Board and Mr. LePage.

[9] Some of the complainant’s other submissions repeat his allegations against the Board and others, and his assertions that his rights under the Code have been violated. Some of his submissions take issue with the outcome of aspects of the court proceedings and the Board’s position in those proceedings.

[10] On my review of the submissions, I am not satisfied that there is any basis to reconsider the decision of June 23. The complainant has not shown that there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier. The decision in Free v. Magnetwan, referred to by the complainant, was considered by the Tribunal in arriving at its decision. In the June 23 decision, I found the circumstances of this case different from those addressed by the Tribunal in Free v. Magnetwan. There is no basis to find that the June 23 Decision is in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure and that this Request involves a matter of general or public importance.

[11] Finally, there are no factors referred to in the Request that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions and orders.

[12] In general, the Request expresses disagreement with the Tribunal’s decision, re-states and provides further submissions on the issues addressed in that decision and on the complainant’s allegations, but does not establish a basis for reconsideration.

[13] The Request for Reconsideration is denied.

Dated at Toronto, this 12^th^ day of August, 2010.

”signed by”______________

Sherry Liang

Vice-chair

Perron v. Monto, 2010 HRTO 1668

Case Summary

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

[1] By Decision dated June 23, 2010, 2010 HRTO 1411, the Tribunal dismissed Tribunal file Number HR-1820-08, a complaint against the Conseil Scolaire de District Catholique des Aurores Boréales (the Board) and Roger LePage.

[2] Further to the Tribunal’s direction of that date, the Commission has stated that it does not intend to proceed with the complaint against the Board and Roger LePage as if it were an application under section 35 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

[3] The complainant has made a Request for Reconsideration of the Decision of June 23. It is not necessary for the other parties to respond to the Request.

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

[5] The Tribunal has issued rules governing Requests for Reconsideration as well as a Practice Direction to provide guidance to the community on the Tribunal’s exercise of its reconsideration powers (Practice Direction on Reconsideration).

[6] Most relevant to this decision are the following provisions of the Rules of Practice:

98. Any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within 30 days of the date of the decision.

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.

[7] The Practice Direction on Reconsideration states, in part:

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

[11] Finally, there are no factors referred to in the Request that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions and orders.

[12] In general, the Request expresses disagreement with the Tribunal’s decision, re-states and provides further submissions on the issues addressed in that decision and on the complainant’s allegations, but does not establish a basis for reconsideration.

[13] The Request for Reconsideration is denied.

Perron v. Monto, 2010 HRTO 1668

Case Summary

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

[1] By Decision dated June 23, 2010, 2010 HRTO 1411, the Tribunal dismissed Tribunal file Number HR-1820-08, a complaint against the Conseil Scolaire de District Catholique des Aurores Boréales (the Board) and Roger LePage.

[2] Further to the Tribunal’s direction of that date, the Commission has stated that it does not intend to proceed with the complaint against the Board and Roger LePage as if it were an application under section 35 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

[3] The complainant has made a Request for Reconsideration of the Decision of June 23. It is not necessary for the other parties to respond to the Request.

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

[5] The Tribunal has issued rules governing Requests for Reconsideration as well as a Practice Direction to provide guidance to the community on the Tribunal’s exercise of its reconsideration powers (Practice Direction on Reconsideration).

[6] Most relevant to this decision are the following provisions of the Rules of Practice:

98. Any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within 30 days of the date of the decision.

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.

[7] The Practice Direction on Reconsideration states, in part:

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

[11] Finally, there are no factors referred to in the Request that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions and orders.

[12] In general, the Request expresses disagreement with the Tribunal’s decision, re-states and provides further submissions on the issues addressed in that decision and on the complainant’s allegations, but does not establish a basis for reconsideration.

[13] The Request for Reconsideration is denied.