Nana Kow Kuffuor v. Carleton University, 2012 HRTO 1909

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Nana Kow Kuffuor

Applicant

-and-

Carleton University

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume

Date: October 9, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1909

Indexed as: Kuffuor v. Carleton University

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Nana Kow Kuffuor, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, 2012 HRTO 913, pursuant to section 45.7 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application was dismissed at the conclusion of a Summary Hearing for no reasonable prospect of success.

2Section 45.7 of the Code provides the Tribunal with authority and discretion 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.

3The 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.

4Rule 26.5 states that 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.

5The 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.

6Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of its case. In Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34, the Tribunal confirmed that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case. Once the parties to an application have had the opportunity to present their evidence and arguments to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal has made a decision disposing of the issues, parties are entitled to treat the matter as closed, subject to limited exceptions.

7This Application was dismissed following both written and oral submissions. The applicant was required to demonstrate that the respondent’s treatment of him was based in part, on the prohibited grounds alleged in the Application.

8The Request for Reconsideration cites Rule 26.5 (c). In the narrative of the Request, the applicant makes it clear that the basis for the Request is that the applicant disagrees with my interpretation of the facts and the correctness of my decision. He also cites the decision by the Tribunal to conduct a Summary Hearing as discriminatory on the basis of his disability.

9The applicant argues that he apprised the Tribunal of his condition and his concern that the Summary hearing process would place a burden on him. In his email dated November 16, 2011 to the Tribunal the applicant says that his lack of counsel and his medical condition “make for telephone conferencing to be detrimental.” In that email the applicant indicates that he intends to record the hearing, although it is not clear whether there is a connection between the applicant’s alleged medical condition and the recording of the hearing. The applicant does not make clear what his medical condition is and how his medical condition is affected by the nature of the summary hearing process.

10The applicant was given as much time as he required during the summary hearing to address the connection between the respondent’s alleged actions and the prohibited grounds he relied on in his Application. He acknowledges having been assured that the Tribunal would review all of the written material, including the material that the applicant was permitted to file following the Summary Hearing. The applicant was given every opportunity to address, both orally and in writing, in advance of, during and after the Summary Hearing, the question of the connection between the respondent’s actions and the prohibited grounds alleged. Fundamentally, the applicant disagrees with the correctness of my decision and the Reconsideration Request is an attempt to reargue the case.

11The issues raised in the Reconsideration Request were considered as part of the original Decision. None of the factors in Rule 26.5 are engaged by the Request for Reconsideration. There is no basis on which I might exercise my discretion to overturn my original decision in this matter. Accordingly the Request for Reconsideration is denied.