Darroch v. Township of King Fire and Emergency Services, 2011 HRTO 212

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Laurie-Lee Darroch

Applicant

-and-

Township of King Fire and Emergency Services

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang

Date: January 28, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 212

Indexed as: Darroch v. King (Township)

1By decision dated November 15, 2010, 2010 HRTO 2268, the Tribunal dismissed this Application because of delay. The applicant has filed a Request for Reconsideration of the decision.

2Section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”) provides the Tribunal with explicit authority to reconsider its decisions:

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.

3Further to its power to make rules, the Tribunal has issued rules governing Requests for Reconsideration as well as a Practice Direction to provide guidance to the community on the Tribunal’s exercise of its reconsideration powers.

4Rule 26 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’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.

6In her Request, the applicant relies on the factors in Rules 26.5(c) and (d). In providing the reasons and representations in support of her Request, she states that the respondent did not at anytime act in good faith. The applicant states that the report of the consultant failed to address any of the issues of alleged discrimination raised by the applicant with the respondent. Further, she submits that had the report been available to her in June 2007, she would have pursued the action with the Ontario Human Rights Commission well within the prescribed time frame. As it was, she did not receive the report until February 2010.

7The applicant states that she relies on section 34(2) of the Code to reconsider this Application because it is her position that the results of the investigation were delayed because of lack of action by the respondent.

DECISION

8The applicant has not provided a basis for reconsideration of the decision of November 15, 2010. She has not identified any established jurisprudence or procedure with which it is in conflict, nor shown any reason why it is a matter of public or general importance. Further, she has not established any factors in favour of reconsideration that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

9The applicant’s submissions amount to further argument on the issues considered by the Tribunal in deciding to dismiss the Application. This is evident from her reliance on section 34(2) and her submissions as a whole.

10Moreover, the applicant’s submissions are no different than those before the Tribunal when it made its decision. The applicant’s explanation for the delay in filing the Application, which concerns events dating back to 2002, was in essence that the respondent failed to provide her with the consultant’s report until February 2010. The Tribunal reviewed the history of the contact between the parties and was not satisfied, on the basis of all the facts before it, that the applicant had acted with all due diligence in pursuing her allegations of discrimination.

11As the applicant has not established that reconsideration of the decision is warranted under Rule 26.5(c) or (d), or any other ground, the Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.