HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Rozana Baber
Applicant
-and-
York Region District School Board
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price
Date: June 7, 2011
Citation: 2011 HRTO 1094
Indexed as: Baber v. York Region District School Board
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Rozana Baber, applicant ) On her own behalf
1On February 23, 2010, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision dismissing her Application against the respondent dated January 28, 2011: 2011 HRTO 213. The applicant’s Request is filed pursuant to s. 45.7(1) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (“the Code”).
2Rule 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.
3These 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.” In her Request, the applicant checked off the box for a).
4The applicant’s Request does not identify any new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier. Rather, in her written submissions, the applicant indicates that she “made a mistake” by not accepting an offer to settle her Application which was available to her while the hearing before the Tribunal was still ongoing. The applicant explains that she is experiencing financial hardship and asks the Tribunal to “grant” the settlement that she submits she could have accepted, but did not.
5It is very unfortunate that the applicant regrets her decision not to accept a settlement proposal from the respondent. However, this is not a basis for Reconsideration. Moreover, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to order the respondent to provide a remedy to the applicant in the absence of any finding that it infringed her rights under the Code.
6Accordingly, the Request for Reconsideration is denied.
Dated at Toronto this 7th day of June, 2011.
”signed by”___________
Sheri Price
Vice-chair