Thambipillai v. Toronto District School Board, 2012 HRTO 1184

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sathasivam Thambipillai

Applicant

-and-

Toronto District School Board

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: June 15, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1184

Indexed as: Thambipillai v. Toronto District School Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Sathasivam Thambipillai, Applicant

Self-represented

1The applicant requests Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision of April 25, 2012, 2012 HRTO 843, dismissing this Application because it had no reasonable prospect of success following a summary hearing held on January 27, 2012.

2The circumstances in which reconsideration may be granted are set out in Rule 26.5:

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.

3The 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.

4The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration on May 3, 2012, and relies upon Rule 26.5(a).

5The Applications concern several job competitions conducted by the respondent in which the applicant participated, but was unsuccessful. The Decision indicates that during the hearing, the applicant accepted the respondent’s explanation regarding the remaining allegation in Application number 2010-05592-I (the “First Application”) and only wished to pursue the allegations in Application number 2011-09975-I (the “Second Application”) regarding the competition for a Maintenance Team Leader position.

6In the Request for Reconsideration, the applicant states that he did not withdraw any of the allegations from the Second Application and only stated that he was “very worried” about the Maintenance Team Leader (“MTL”) position. Accordingly, the applicant requests reconsideration of the Decision regarding all of the positions in the Second Application, including the MTL position, having regard to purportedly new facts set out in extensive written submissions.

7With respect, the applicant clearly stated at the hearing that he did not intend to pursue his allegations regarding the job competitions described in either Application with the exception of the MTL position. In any event, the applicant made no submissions regarding any position except the MTL position. It is clear that the Request for Reconsideration is an attempt to repair deficiencies in his case, which, as the Practice Direction on Reconsideration points out, is not a proper basis for reconsideration.

8The applicant did not suggest that the facts set out in the Request for Reconsideration were not available to him at the summary hearing; therefore, these facts are “new” only in the sense that the applicant did not raise them at the summary hearing. Consequently, the applicant has not met the criteria under Rule 26.5(a). The applicant provided no reason to conclude that compelling and extraordinary circumstances exist that would call for reconsideration of the decision to dismiss this Application.

9The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.