N.P. v. Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, 2011 HRTO 691

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

N.P. by her litigation guardian L.P.

Applicant

-and-

Ottawa-Carleton District School Board

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty

Date: April 11, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 691

Indexed as: N.P. v. Ottawa-Carleton District School Board

1This Application was filed under s. 53(5) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2In an Interim Decision, 2011 HRTO 532, the Tribunal dismissed portions of the Application that relate to the following allegation: that on September 1, 2003, the respondent school board removed certain supports and services that had been provided to the applicant at a second elementary school (Sawmill Creek).

3The Tribunal concluded that it would be an abuse of process for those portions of the Application to proceed.

4The applicant has filed a Request for Reconsideration (“Request”) and submissions in support of the Request. A respondent is not required to respond to a Request for Reconsideration unless directed to do so by the Tribunal. In the circumstances of this Request, the Tribunal did not deem it necessary to seek submissions from the respondent.

5Pursuant to section 45.7 of the Code, any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may request that it reconsider its decision. The Rules elaborate on the conditions and requirements of such a request. Rule 25 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure for Transitional Applications states:

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.

6The applicant argues that the Interim Decision should be reconsidered because there is a factual dispute as to whether:

a. the applicant was accommodated prior to September 1, 2003; and

b. supports and services were removed as of September 1, 2003.

7As I indicate in the Interim Decision (at paras. 19-22), this factual dispute was addressed by both parties at the preliminary hearing. However, I found that it was not necessary for me to resolve the factual dispute in order to determine the abuse of process issue.

8In her submissions in support of her reconsideration Request, the applicant seeks to reargue the factual dispute. However, she makes no submissions in her Request that bear on any of the factors set out in Rule 25.

9The reconsideration Request is denied.