HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Lisa Hickey
Applicant
-and-
Everest Colleges Canada, Robert Middleton and Jacqueline Nelles
Respondents
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Judith Hinchman
Indexed as: Hickey v. Everest Colleges Canada
1This Decision addresses the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration under section 45.7 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended (the “Code”) of the Tribunal’s Decision, 2009 HRTO 796, wherein it awarded the applicant $3,000.00 on the basis that the respondents had infringed her rights under the Code to be free of discrimination on the grounds of disability in receiving goods and services. That decision was issued on June 9, 2009. The applicant now requests that the remedy be reconsidered and increased. Specifically she requests that her tuition payment to the corporate respondent be fully refunded and that she be awarded legal costs. Neither of these remedies were requested when her Application was adjudicated before the Tribunal.
2Rule 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. Rule 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.
3In her Request, the applicant argues that point c above warrants a reconsideration of my Decision. The applicant has not identified any established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure with which the Decision conflicts. More importantly the Tribunal Rules (now Rule 26.5.1) provide that:
A Request for Reconsideration made more than 30 days following the Decision will not be granted unless the Tribunal determines that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay.
4The applicant explains the delay results from her attempt, after receiving the Decision, to have the corporate respondent refund her tuition in addition to the award granted that it did pay to her. She submits further that when the corporate respondent refused to refund her tuition, she commenced a small claims court action for the tuition and later for her legal fees and thereafter appealed the small claims court refusal of her claim to the Divisional Court. None of this explains, however, why she did not seek the additional remedy of a tuition refund when the Tribunal heard her Application over two and one-half years ago. I am not persuaded that this delay in bringing her Request for Reconsideration was incurred in good faith. And as I have stated above, even if I were to determine that it was, the applicant has not identified any established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure with which the Decision conflicts.
4Once the parties to an application have had the opportunity to present their evidence and 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. Reconsideration is a discretionary remedy; there is no right to have a decision reconsidered by the Tribunal. The Request does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 25.5. The Request for Reconsideration is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 18th day of November, 2011.
”signed by”
Judith Hinchman
Member