Deopaul Chintaman v. Toronto District School Board, 2011 HRTO 198

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Deopaul Chintaman

Applicant

-and-

Toronto District School Board, Craig Snider, Ron Gumbley and Lisa Kivilchan

Respondents

Reconsideration DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: January 27, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 198

Indexed as: Deopaul Chintaman v. Toronto District School Board

1This is an Application filed December 18, 2008, under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application was dismissed: 2010 HRTO 2418.

2On January 20, 2011, the applicant filed a Request for reconsideration under section 45.7 of the Code.

45.7 (1) Any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may request that the Tribunal reconsiders its decision in accordance with the Tribunal rules.

(2) Upon request under subsection (1) or on its own motion, the Tribunal may reconsider its decision in accordance with its rules.

3Rule 25 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure for Transitional Applications provides that any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within 30 days of the date of the Decision.

4Rule 25.5 provides:

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.

5In his submissions the applicant made no reference to any of the criteria set out above. The applicant took issue with a number of findings made in the Decision and the Request was, in large part, an attempt to re-argue the merits of the case. The applicant evidently disagrees with the conclusions reached and the final result.

6The applicant also submitted new material related to events well past the time period covered by this Application and the Decision in question.

7None of these are proper grounds for a Reconsideration and accordingly the Request is dismissed.