Soujah v. Ability Learning Network, 2012 HRTO 1694

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Khaled Soujah

Applicant

-and-

Ability Learning Network and Larry Flude

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: September 7, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1694

Indexed as: Soujah v. Ability Learning Network

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Khaled Soujah, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1On August 3, 2012, the Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, 2012 HRTO 1526, dismissing the Application. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision.

2In the Decision, I found that the applicant’s failure to be admitted to a vocational training program run by the Ability Learning Network was not based on his place of origin or any other prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

3The Request for Reconsideration is accompanied by an 11-page letter, a newspaper article from the Toronto Star and a further one-page explanation for the inclusion of this article. In addition to submitting that the Decision was wrong, the applicant also asserts that I was biased in making that Decision.

DECISION

4Under section 45.7 of the Code, the Tribunal may, at the request of a party or on its own initiative, reconsider its decisions in accordance with Tribunal’s Rules.

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.

5The Tribunal has issued Rules of Procedure, which govern such requests, 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, January 2008 amended June 2008). Rule 26 states in part:

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.

6The 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.

7As 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.

8I find that the applicant has not met the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration. Although he asserts that all four criteria for reconsideration found in Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rule of Procedure apply, the applicant’s assertions are largely merely a re-argument of what he believes are the facts of the case. These arguments could (and in some instances were) made to the Tribunal at the hearing on the merits. The Tribunal’s Practice Direction makes it clear that reconsideration is not an appeal.

9The applicant also asserts that I am Jewish and that this meant that I was biased, given his position on the importance of creed to the treatment he received by a staff member at the Ability Learning Network. In addition to being factually incorrect, this argument is not supported by the case law on bias, nor does it otherwise have merit.

10In light of the above, I find that the applicant has not established the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26 that would lead to reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision. The Request is, therefore, denied.