<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
---
**B E T W E E N:**
Hana Abdul
Applicant
-and-
York University
Respondent
**A N D B E T W E E N:**
Hana Abdul
Applicant
-and-
University of Waterloo
Respondent
---
**RECONSIDERATION DECISION**
---
**Adjudicator:** Brian Eyolfson
**Date:** November 4, 2011
**Citation:** 2011 HRTO 1999
**Indexed as:** Abdul v. York University
---
**WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY**
Hana Abdul, Applicant ) Self-represented
<!--mc:close:case-cover-->
## [1]
On October 13, 2011, the Tribunal issued its Decision, [2011 HRTO 1851](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2011/1851), dismissing these Applications filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), and alleging discrimination in employment. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision.
## BACKGROUND
## [2]
In a Case Assessment Direction dated March 16, 2011, the Tribunal directed, pursuant to Rule 19A.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, that a summary hearing be held to determine whether these Applications should be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success. The summary hearing was held by teleconference on June 20, 2011. In its subsequent Decision, the Tribunal found that there was no reasonable prospect that either Application would succeed, and dismissed the Applications. The Tribunal stated, in part, as follows, at para. 18:
> The applicant’s allegations are merely speculative, and there does not appear to be anything in the materials, including the applicant’s job application documents, that would support the applicant’s allegations. The applicant has not demonstrated that there is a reasonable prospect that evidence she has, or that is reasonably available to her, can show a link between either respondent’s failure to grant her an interview and any Code grounds.
## RECONSIDERATION REQUEST
## [3]
Under s. 45.7 of the Code, the Tribunal may, at the request of a party or on its own initiative, reconsider its decisions in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules.
> 45.7(1) Any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may request that the Tribunal reconsider 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.
## [4]
The Tribunal has issued Rules governing such requests as well as a Practice Direction to provide guidance to the community on the Tribunal’s exercise of its reconsideration powers (Practice Direction on Reconsideration, January 2008 amended June 2008). Most relevant to this Decision is Rule 26.5 which states:
> 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.
[5] The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration begins with the following statements:
> 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.
[6] As is evident from the above, reconsideration is a discretionary remedy. That is, while the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to reopen and reconsider its own decisions, it is not obliged to do so. It may decide when reconsideration is advisable, both through the promulgation of rules setting out conditions for the exercise of its discretion, and through the application of its discretion on a case-by-case basis.
[7] In the present Request, the applicant raises concerns with the cases relied upon by the respondents, and the issues they addressed at the summary hearing. The applicant also raises concerns, in relation to her withdrawal of other “complaints”, that appear unrelated to the present Applications, and the issue before the Tribunal at the summary hearing.
[8] In her Request, the applicant relies, in particular, on Rule 26.5(a) of the Tribunal’s Rules; however, the applicant has not identified any new facts or evidence that, even if accepted as true, could potentially be determinative of the Applications, and could not reasonably have been obtained earlier.
## [9]
The applicant also appears to be re-arguing her case, by taking issue with submissions made before the Tribunal at the summary hearing. In [Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2008/34), the Tribunal stated that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case. Once the parties have had the opportunity to present their arguments to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal has made a decision disposing of the issues, parties are entitled to treat the matter as closed, subject to limited exceptions. I find that the applicant’s submissions, in this regard, amount to additional argument on issues already fully canvassed before the Tribunal.
## [10]
In addition, there is nothing before me suggesting that the applicant was entitled to but did not receive notice of the proceeding or a hearing, that the Tribunal’s Decision is in conflict with established jurisprudence, or that other factors exist that outweigh the pubic interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.
## [11]
In sum, I find that the applicant has not established the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26.5 that would lead to reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision.
## [12]
The Request is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 4<sup>th</sup> day of November, 2011.
“Signed by”
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Brian Eyolfson
Vice-chair
minicounsel