HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Michael Christianson Applicant
-and-
University of Windsor Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty Date: September 23, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 1935 Indexed as: Christianson v. University of Windsor
INTRODUCTION
1On July 27, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Decision, 2010 HRTO 1607, in which it dismissed the Application pursuant to section 34 of the of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Tribunal determined that the Application had been filed outside the limitation period and that the applicant had not established that the delay in filing was in good faith, within the meaning of the Code.
2On August 26, 2010, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration (“Request”) and submissions in support of his Request. A respondent is not required to respond to a Request for Reconsideration unless directed to do so by the Tribunal. In the circumstances of this Request, the Tribunal did not deem it necessary to seek submissions from the respondent.
3Section 45.7 of the Code allows any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal to request that it reconsider its decision. The Rules elaborate on the conditions and requirements of such a request. Pursuant to Rule 26.5, 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.
4It is also useful to consider the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration, which 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.
5The applicant has raised a number of objections to the Decision. In the Request, he checked the boxes identifying the following factors: (a) new facts or evidence; (c) conflict with established case law; and (d) other factors that outweigh the public interest in the finality of the Tribunal’s decisions.
6In his Request, however, the applicant made no submissions that bear on these factors or, indeed, on any of the criteria outlined in either Rule 26 or the Practice Direction on Reconsideration. The thrust of his submissions merely reiterates arguments made at the hearing of this matter. It is evident that the applicant disagrees with the Tribunal’s finding, however he has presented no basis to reconsider the Decision.
7The Request for Reconsideration is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 23rd day of September, 2010.
“Signed by”
___________________________________
Michelle Flaherty Vice-chair