Pannu v. Peel District School Board, 2010 HRTO 2253

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Raj Pannu Applicant

-and-

Peel District School Board Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Raj Pannu Applicant

-and-

Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Jim Dimovski Date: November 12, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 2253 Indexed as: Pannu v. Peel District School Board

1These Applications were filed under section 53(3) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

2In my Decision 2010 HRTO 1233, I dismissed the Applications on the basis of section 45.1 of the Code.

3On July 2, 2010, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration (the "Request") of my Decision under section 45.7 of the Code.

4The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure for Transitional Applications provide that any party may request reconsideration of a decision in accordance with Rule 25.5, which provides as follows:

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; 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 the 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.

5The applicant based her Request on the factors set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) above. However, after reading her submissions, I find the Request seems to be more appropriately based on paragraphs (a) and (c).

THE REQUEST

6For the most part, the applicant’s submissions merely reiterate the submissions she made at the hearing. In essence, she submits that the grievance proceeding which, in 2006 and January 2008, resulted in settlements signed by her, did not appropriately deal with the substance of her human rights allegations she had originally filed with the Commission in 2007.

7In her view, the Tribunal’s proper role, in the course of a s. 45.1 assessment, is to "to determine whether the Arbitrator proceeded fairly and upon the proper principles with due con[s]ideration of the facts and human rights law relevant to the discrimination issues before him." It was not the Tribunal’s role, she submits, to "sit in appeal from the decision in another proceeding and assess whether or not this Tribunal agrees with the result of the other proceeding". She argues that I inappropriately agreed with the "decision of the other proceeding", ignored relevant evidence and erred in my interpretation of the Tribunal’s jurisprudence.

ANALYSIS

8After considering the applicant’s submissions, I find that the Request must be dismissed.

9In my view, the applicant simply attempts to re-argue or recast the arguments she made at the original hearing and which had been considered by the original decision. Reconsideration is not an appeal or the opportunity to repair deficiencies in the presentation of one’s case. It is a discretionary remedy exercised only in compelling and extraordinary circumstances.

10The question before me was whether the Minutes of Settlement the applicant signed in 2006 and 2008 appropriately dealt with her human rights allegations raised before the Tribunal. In my decision, I found the allegations in the grievance and the Applications before me were identical and the remedies sought in the two proceedings were incorporated into settlements she signed, and thus appropriately dealt with.

11The applicant reiterates her argument that she was rushed and under duress at the time she signed the 2006 and 2008 Minutes of Settlement. I also addressed this argument in the Decision and the applicant has not provided any proper basis for the exercise of my discretion to reconsider my finding on that point.

12The applicant submits I failed to admit the December 2008 medical report prepared by Dr. Esmond and that this refusal justifies reconsideration. I disagree. While the respondents initially objected to the admission of the report and I reserved on that objection, at the end of the day the report was admitted into evidence. Indeed, prior to closing submissions no party objected to my confirming that all evidence submitted in support of the parties’ submissions, including the medical report, would be admitted. I did consider the report but found it offered little relevant or probative evidence given its content did not differ significantly from previous reports prepared and provided to the respondent and because it dealt with injuries and accommodations which post-dated the January 2008 settlement. It does not support a finding that the settlements did not appropriately deal with the substance of her Applications at the time she entered into them. Accordingly, I am not satisfied the original decision failed to consider evidence that likely would have lead to a different result.

13For all of these reasons the Request to reconsider the Decision is dismissed.