HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Janet Blommesteyn Applicant
-and-
The Regional Municipality of York Police Services Board Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané Date: September 11, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1714 Indexed as: Blommesteyn v. York Police Services Board
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Janet Blommesteyn, Applicant Self-represented
Introduction
1This is an Application filed on October 12, 2010 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability, age and reprisal.
2The respondent The Regional Municipality of York Police Services Board (the “Board”) has filed a Response denying the allegations in the Application and this matter is scheduled for hearing in Toronto on March 11, 12 and 13, 2013.
3On August 14, 2012, the Tribunal issued Interim Decision 2012 HRTO 1565 (the “Interim Decision”) denying the applicant’s request to add individual respondents to the Application.
4On August 26, 2012, the applicant filed a Form 20, Request for Reconsideration (the “Reconsideration request”) of the Interim Decision. In the Reconsideration request the applicant reiterates, much of the same arguments made in her original request to add the individual respondents. In addition, the applicant takes the position that these individuals should be added as respondents because they are necessary witnesses and should be compelled to testify and be cross-examined at the hearing.
5The Tribunal did not direct the respondent to file any submissions with respect to the applicant’s Reconsideration request.
The Law
6Under 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.
7The Tribunal has issued Rules governing such requests most relevant to this Decision is Rule 26 which states:
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.
8As 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.
Decision
9I find that the applicant has not met the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration. In support of her Request, the applicant is essentially repeating arguments made before the Tribunal. A request for reconsideration is not an opportunity to restate or re-argue a position already advanced and considered.
10With respect to the applicant’s argument that the individual respondents need to be parties so that they can be compelled to testify, I find that the Tribunal has rejected that argument in at least one decision. See Viney v. Volkswagen Group of Canada, 2011 HRTO 324 at para. 18. The fact that these individuals are not respondents to the Application does not mean that the may not testify at the hearing. Should the respondents fail to include them in their list of witnesses, the applicant may request a summons and to ensure that any of these individuals testifies before the Tribunal.
11For all of these reasons, the applicant’s Reconsideration request is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 11^th^ day of September, 2012.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané Vice-chair