HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Nina Unantenne
Applicant
-and-
The Hospital for Sick Children
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Ian R. Mackenzie
Indexed as: Unantenne v. The Hospital for Sick Children
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Nina Unantenne, Applicant
Self-represented
Introduction
1On June 21, 2012, the Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, 2012 HRTO 315, dismissing the Application. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision in accordance with section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the "Code").
BACKGROUND
2In her Application, the applicant alleged discrimination with respect to employment because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship and ethnic origin. The applicant alleged that discriminatory questions were asked in her job interview, that that there was a poisoned work environment and that her employment was terminated for discriminatory reasons.
3In the Decision, I determined that:
a. The questions asked of the applicant in her job interview were discriminatory;
b. In the circumstances, a declaration of a breach of the Code was an appropriate remedy; and
c. The remaining allegations of discrimination were dismissed.
THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
4The applicant has relied on the following reasons to support her Request for Reconsideration:
a. The decision is in conflict with established case law and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance; and
b. Other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.
5The applicant disagrees with the findings of fact and findings on credibility in the Decision.
6The applicant also alleged that the decision was biased because the "respondent's version has been copied and presented as the final decision." In addition, she alleges that I planned to meet with the respondent's counsel in her absence and sought his assistance in finding case law to substantiate the respondent's position.
7The applicant submitted that the sociological research on discrimination that she provided at the hearing should have been considered in arriving at the Decision. In addition, she provided further academic articles and research studies in her Request for Reconsideration.
DECISION
8Under section 45.7 of Code, the Tribunal may reconsider its decisions in accordance with the Tribunal's Rules. The Tribunal has issued Rules governing such requests as well as a Practice Direction to provide guidance to applicants and respondents on the Tribunal's exercise of its reconsideration powers (Practice Direction on Reconsideration, January 2008, amended June 2008 and March 2010). Rule 26.5 provides:
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.
7The Tribunal's Practice Direction on Reconsideration contains 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.
9I find that the applicant has not met the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration.
10Disagreeing with the conclusions of a decision is not sufficient to justify a reconsideration of a decision. Similarly, disagreeing with findings on credibility of witnesses is not sufficient to justify a reconsideration of a decision.
11The applicant has not provided any support for her submission that the Decision is in conflict with established jurisprudence. I find that it is not in conflict with established jurisprudence.
12The applicant has not provided any facts to support allegations of bias in the Decision, including that I planned to meet with counsel for the respondent in her absence. In addition, it is not clear what the reference to seeking assistance in finding case law from counsel refers to. I did not meet with counsel for the respondent outside of the presence of the applicant. I did not state in the hearing that I planned at any time to meet with counsel for the respondent outside of the presence of the applicant. I did not ask counsel for the respondent to assist me in finding case law. I did request clarification from counsel for the respondent on one of his submissions. However, asking questions of a party during a hearing about the case law it relies upon is not an indication of bias.
13I reviewed the sociological research provided by the applicant in her submissions at the hearing and determined that it was not relevant to the matters at issue in the Application. The additional documents provided in the Request for Reconsideration are also not relevant to this Application.
14I find that the applicant has not demonstrated that the reconsideration request involves a matter of general or public importance or that other factors outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.
15The Request for Reconsideration is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 20th day of August, 2012.
Signed by
Ian R. Mackenzie
Member