Harcourt v. Ryerson University, 2011 HRTO 1529

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sondra Harcourt

Applicant

-and-

Ryerson University

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist

Date: August 16, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1529

Indexed as: Harcourt v. Ryerson University

1This is a Request for a Reconsideration (the “Request”) filed by the applicant, in respect of a Decision dated May 14, 2011, 2011 HRTO 872, (the “Decision”) dismissing the Application in this matter.

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

2The Request is a detailed and considered submission in which the applicant argues that the Tribunal’s Decision did not properly assess the evidence that was adduced and submissions that were made during the course of the hearing of her Application. It provides a number of specific examples where, in the applicant’s opinion, the Tribunal did not appropriately consider or weigh the evidence it had before it and submits that a number of the findings and conclusions in the Decision are inaccurate. The Request identifies a number of what the applicant believes are factual errors in the Decision. It submits that the Decision misconstrued the significance of some evidence and gave too much emphasis to other evidence, usually evidence adduced by the respondent. It submits that the Decision frames the applicant’s allegations of discrimination too narrowly. It submits that the respondent’s general practices around accommodating students with disabilities are not adequately addressed in the Decision. The applicant refers to the effects that the Decision has had on her and her belief that the respondent’s accommodation practices will not meet the needs of other students with disabilities who may need accommodation.

3In sum, the Request is arguing that the Decision’s assessment of the evidence adduced at the hearing and the submissions of the parties are flawed and as a consequence the Tribunal has wrongly decided the applicant’s Application.

ANALYSIS

4Under section 45.7 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”) the Tribunal may, at the request of a party or on its own initiative, reconsider a final decision in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules. The most relevant Tribunal Rule is Rule 26 which reads, in part, as follows:

26.5 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 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.

5The Tribunal has also issued a Practice Direction to provide guidance on how the Tribunal exercises its reconsideration powers (Practice Direction on Reconsideration). The Practice Direction states, in part, that:

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.

6The applicant’s Request is based on a view that the Tribunal’s Decision is flawed and wrongly decided. This is not grounds for reconsideration under Rule 26. It is, in effect, an attempt to re-argue the case and appeal the Tribunal’s Decision. The proper means to raise such a challenge is through an application to the courts for judicial review of the Decision.

7I find that the applicant has not established the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26 that would lead to reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision. The applicant has not identified any new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier. There was no evidence or submissions put forward by the applicant to support her claim that the Decision is in conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure.

8The applicant may have been attempting to argue that the proposed reconsideration could involve a matter of general or public importance when she submitted that other students with disabilities are affected by the respondent’s accommodation practices and that a different decision by the Tribunal in her case could oblige the respondent to change and improve these practices. However, Tribunal decisions can often lead to or require changes in respondent practices. These decisions, even if they affect change beyond the individual circumstances of the applicant usually do not involve a matter of general or public importance. I do not see that reconsideration in the present case would involve a matter of general or public importance.

9There was no evidence or submissions put forward by the applicant that there are other factors the Tribunal should consider that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions and orders.

10For all of the above reasons the Request for Reconsideration is denied.