Mukesh Goel v. Peel District School Board, 2012 HRTO 1124

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mukesh Goel

Applicant

-and-

Peel District School Board, Judith Nyman, Carol Speers, Ian Adamson, James Grieve, Jan Coomber, Paul Jones, Susan Hiraishi and Tony Pontes

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta

Date: June 7, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1124

Indexed as: Goel v. Peel District School Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Mukesh Goel, Applicant ) Self-represented

INTRODUCTION

1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”), in which he alleged discrimination in respect of employment on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin, disability and creed. He also alleged that he experienced reprisal. The applicant named his former employer as well as eight personal respondents who were employed as senior administrators within the respondent school board during the material time.

2A preliminary hearing was held to canvass the parties’ positions on a number of issues including whether this Application or parts of it should be dismissed on the basis of delay in filing it.

3Following the preliminary hearing held on April 13, 2012, the Application was dismissed by way of a Decision dated April 24, 2012. The Tribunal held that Application was not filed within one year of the last in a series of incidents of discrimination and the applicant had not provided a good faith reason for the delay

4On May 23, 2012, the Tribunal received a Request for Reconsideration, dated May 23, 2012, from the applicant. The respondents have not been called upon to file a Response to the Reconsideration Request and they have not done so.

5The applicant argues that reconsideration is warranted in this case on the ground that other factors exist that would outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

6This is the Tribunal’s Decision on the Request for Reconsideration.

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

7Section 45.7 of 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.

8Further 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 (Practice Direction on Reconsideration).

9Most relevant to this decision is Rule 26 which reads, in part, as follows:

26.1 Any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within (thirty) 30 days of the date of the decision.

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.

10The 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.

11As 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.

12The applicant has based his request on Rule 26.5(d). He argues that although he accepts there was a delay in filing the Application, in the interest of justice, his Application ought to be allowed to proceed. He does not make any arguments relating to the issue of good faith for the delay. He does, however, provide a chart outlining various incidents in support of his contention that there was ample evidence of continued harassment and reprisal by the respondents during the period from October 17, 2005 to the present. He argues that the respondent school board’s reputation is “under a cloud” and “cases such as (his) go a long way in seeking accountability and proper functioning of the PDSB”.

13Having reviewed the submissions of the parties, I find that the arguments raised by the applicant are essentially reiterations of positions that he articulated during the preliminary hearing and in his previous written materials. Although it is apparent that the applicant has a strongly held view that he experienced discriminatory treatment and reprisal, he has not made submissions that fall within the scope of Rule 26.5(d) and that warrant reconsideration of the Decision made to dismiss this Application on the basis that it was filed late without a good faith reason for the delay. As such, I find no basis to grant reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision of April 24, 2012.

14The Request is denied.