Way v. University of Toronto, 2011 HRTO 19

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Margaret Way

Applicant

-and-

Governing Council of the University of Toronto and Coalition Against Psychiatric Assault

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: January 4, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 19

Indexed as: Way v. University of Toronto

INTRODUCTION

1This Decision addresses the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration under section 45.7(1) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended (the “Code”), of the Tribunal’s Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 2337.

2The Application originally named two organizational respondents, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (“OISE”) and Coalition Against Psychiatric Assault (“CAPA”), and one personal respondent, a Registrar with OISE (“Registrar”). The previous Interim Decision removed the Registrar as a party to the Application and restricted the scope of the Application to exclude allegations regarding events that pre-dated November 2009. The Interim Decision also amended the style of cause to include the correct legal name for the respondent OISE, Governing Council of the University of Toronto.

3The applicant challenges the removal of the personal respondent from the Application and the narrowing of the temporal scope of the Application.

BACKGROUND

4The applicant filed a human rights complaint against OISE in 2005, which was settled in 2008. This settlement included a provision expressly contemplating that the applicant could re-apply for admission for the 2009/2010 academic year.

5The current Application was filed on September 14, 2010. The applicant alleged that in March 2010, she was informed that she was denied admission into three OISE PhD programs for the 2009/2010 academic year. The applicant alleges that OISE, as influenced by the CAPA Chair, unfairly excluded her from the PhD programs as reprisal and because she is over sixty years of age, heterosexual, Christian and perceived to have a mental disability.

DECISION

6Section 45.7(1) of the Code provides that any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may request that the Tribunal reconsider its decision in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules. Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules 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.

7The Tribunal’s jurisprudence establishes that reconsideration is not an opportunity to for a party to reargue their case, nor is it available simply because a party disagrees with a decision. See Dwyer v. Chrysler Canada, 2009 HRTO 385. A request for reconsideration is not an opportunity to restate submissions already advanced and considered: Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34.

8I accept that the Interim Decision was a “final” decision with respect to the removal of the personal respondent as a party to the Application. See Alabi v. Cancer Care Ontario, 2010 HRTO 478. I also accept that the Interim Decision was a “final” decision in relation to the struck allegations pre-dating November 2009.

Removal of Personal Respondent

9The Request for Reconsideration alleges that the Tribunal erred in removing the personal respondent because, as the Registrar, the personal respondent should not have signed the rejection letters without investigating the basis of the rejection. The applicant submits that the personal respondent’s “scope of employment responsibilities is to ensure that all PhD applicants are treated fairly” and, therefore, “it is extremely necessary” to maintain the Registrar as a personal respondent.

10As noted the Interim Decision, the determination to remove the personal respondent from the Application was based on the Tribunal’s Rules, jurisprudence and parties’ written submissions. On my review of the Request, I am not satisfied that any of the criteria supporting reconsideration of the decision have been established. In her Request, the applicant recites several points raised in her original submissions and indicates that she disagrees with the Tribunal’s findings because these findings were inconsistent with her perception of the issues.

11The applicant’s disagreement with the conclusions drawn by the Tribunal is not a basis for reconsideration. There are no new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and the applicant’s submissions do not raise issues of general importance nor outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions. The applicant has not cited any point where the Decision conflicts with established case law or Tribunal procedure.

Temporal Scope

12The Tribunal’s Interim Decision found that all the statements in the applicant’s Application that related to her previous human rights complaint only served as background information for the current allegations. The Tribunal further held that all the allegations in the Application that relate to incidents that occurred prior to the 2009 application should be dismissed because they are outside the one-year statutory deadline and do not form part of the events relating to the applicant’s application for admission in the 2009/2010 academic year.

13Based on her Reconsideration submissions, the applicant appears to argue that she is entitled to include her previous human rights concerns and specifically, seeks to include an incident involving a classroom presentation in October 2008.

14In the Interim Decision, the Tribunal held that October 2008 allegation was out of time because that incident was a single classroom event unrelated to the applicant’s attempts to apply to three PhD programs for the 2009/2010 academic year. The Interim Decision held that the October 2008 incident was not part of a series of incidents related to the events surrounding the applicant’s 2009 application for admission.

15Having regard to the applicant’s submissions, I am not satisfied that there is a basis for reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision. There is no suggestion 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 submissions do not establish that the Tribunal’s decision is in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure. The applicant relies on certain sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; however, these provisions do not establish that the Tribunal erred in its understanding the law. Finally, it has not been shown that other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

16The Request for Reconsideration is denied.

17By way of Case Assessment Direction dated November 29, 2010, the Tribunal proposed to separate the Application as against OISE and CAPA and provided the parties with an opportunity to file submissions in objection. No party filed an objection. As such, for the purpose of any further steps in the Tribunal process, the Application against OISE will be separated from the Application as against CAPA. The Registrar will advise the parties of the new file number for the Application against CAPA.

18I am not seized of this matter.