HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Nepthys Aberdeen

Applicant

-and-

University of Toronto and University of Toronto Campus Police, a Division of the Toronto Police Service

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: February 22, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 386

Indexed as: Aberdeen 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 2514.

2The applicant requests that the Tribunal reconsider its Interim Decision finding that the allegations with respect to pre-2009 events were untimely and that the Application would not proceed in relation to these pre-2009 allegations. The applicant submits that reconsideration is appropriate because there are new facts and evidence and that the Interim Decision is in conflict with human rights principles and is a matter of public importance.

BACKGROUND

3In her May 31, 2010 Application narrative, the applicant alleged that her education was ‘sabotaged’ because of the unfair and discriminatory treatment she experienced while studying at the respondent University of Toronto (“University”). The applicant also alleged that she experienced harassment and brutality at the hands of the respondent University’s Campus Police (“Campus Police”) in June 2009.

4The applicant has been enrolled as an undergraduate student of the University since September 2000 and has actively studied there for seven years. The applicant’s allegations of unfair and discriminatory treatment relate to her general experiences throughout her studies. The applicant’s allegations against the Campus Police relate to events that occurred on June 2, 2009, and resulted in criminal charges against the applicant.

5On August 3, 2010, in response to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, the applicant provided answers to complete her Application and also provided detailed submissions comprising of 159 pages of extended explanation and narrative regarding her allegations, including voluminous pages of allegations regarding past events.

6On September 1, 2010, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 1804, directing the parties to file written submissions with respect to jurisdictional issues, including whether or not all or part of the Application was barred because of delay.

7The respondents filed their Response and submissions in response to the issues identified in the Interim Decision on October 12, 2010. On November 1, 2010, the applicant filed a Reply and submissions in response to the issues identified in the Interim Decision.

DELAY DECISION

8As previously noted, the allegations made in the Application related to the applicant’s (1) general experiences during the course of her seven years of studies at the University and (2) specific experiences flowing from the events of June 2, 2009 involving the Campus Police.

9The Tribunal considered the nature of the events and whether the events could reasonably be viewed as a pattern of conduct or comprised of incidents relating to discrete and separate issues without some connection or nexus: Duggan v. Villa Care Centre Nursing Home, 2010 HRTO 1695, Baisa v. Skills for Change, 2010 HRTO 1621. The Tribunal noted that the continuing effects of an act of alleged discrimination do not in themselves constitute further acts of discrimination or a series of incidents: Mafinezam v. University of Toronto, 2010 HRTO 1495.

10Based on the applicant’s narrative and the parties’ submissions, the Tribunal determined there is significant delay with respect to parts of the Application. The Tribunal did not accept that the discrimination alleged by the applicant in the first component of her Application constituted a series of incidents and/or a continuing contravention of the Code. The Tribunal concluded that the first component of the Application, specifically the allegations relating to pre-2009 events, was untimely. The Tribunal held that since the applicant had not provided an explanation for why she could not have made an application about this alleged discrimination in a timely manner, she could not proceed with this part of the Application.

11The Tribunal concluded that the second component of the Application, specifically the events of June 2, 2009 and after, was within the Code’s one year limitation period. As such, the Application was permitted to proceed with respect to the allegations in relation to the events surrounding June 2, 2009.

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

12I accept that the Interim Decision was a “final” decision with respect to narrowing the temporal scope of the Application and striking the allegations pre-dating June 2009. See Alabi v. Cancer Care Ontario, 2010 HRTO 478.

13Section 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.

14The 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 a mechanism for restatement of submissions already advanced and considered: Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34.

15Based on her Reconsideration submissions, the applicant appears to argue that she is entitled to include her earlier human rights concerns because these general experiences for the years prior to the events of June 2, 2009 are necessary for the Tribunal to appreciate the complete and “truly connective” nature of the discrimination. The applicant states that incidents of June 2009 evolved out of the previous seven years of “scorn and silent hostility”. The applicant also argues that the delay was in good faith because, in the early years, she could not bring herself to believe her professors at the respondent university were “capable of such prejudice”.

16On my review of the Request, I am not satisfied that any of the criteria supporting reconsideration of the Interim Decision have been established. In her Request the applicant recites several points raised in her original submissions and indicates that she disagrees with my findings because these findings were inconsistent with her perception of the issues. The applicant’s disagreement with the conclusions that I drew from the materials before me is not a basis for reconsideration. I find that these submissions amount to an attempt to reargue aspects of matters decided in the Interim Decision. As set out above, the reconsideration process is neither an appeal nor an opportunity to reargue a case and accordingly, I find there are no grounds to grant reconsideration on the basis of these particular submissions.

17The submissions do not establish that the Tribunal’s Interim Decision is in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure. Finally, it has not been shown that other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

18The Request for Reconsideration is denied.

19I am not seized of this matter.