Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
R.D. by his next friend L.D. Applicant
-and-
Toronto District School Board Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty Date: November 13, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 2137 Cited as: R.D. v. Toronto District School Board
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
R.D. by his next friend L.D., Applicant ) Next Friend
1On August 22, 2012, following a summary hearing and after reviewing additional written submissions from the parties, I issued a Decision dismissing this Application.
2In an Interim Decision, the respondent had raised the issue of whether L.D. had the authority to proceed with the Application given that R.D. was in the care and custody of a Children’s Aid Society. In the Decision, I found that L.D. had the authority to proceed with the Application, but that the matter had no reasonable prospect of success: see 2012 HRTO 1606 (the “Decision”).
3On September 20, 2012, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration. A respondent is not required to respond to a Request for Reconsideration unless directed to do so by the Tribunal. In the circumstances of this Request, I did not deem it necessary to seek submissions from the respondents.
4For the reasons that follow, the Request for Reconsideration is denied.
ANALYSIS
5Pursuant to section 45.7 of the Code, any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may request that it reconsider its decision. The Rules elaborate on the conditions and requirements of such a request.
6Pursuant to Rule 26.1, a Request for Reconsideration must be filed within 30 days of the date of the Decision. Rule 26.5 states that a 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.
7Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of its case. In this regard, it is helpful to consider the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration, which states, in part:
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.
8In her Request and the documents accompanying it, the applicant does not identify any factor set out in Rule 26.5 or, indeed, any basis for reconsidering the Decision. Instead, in her detailed written submissions, the applicant has reiterated many of the arguments that were made or that could have been made at the summary hearing. She repeats the allegations contained in the Application and many of the arguments that she had already made in support of it.
9It is apparent that the applicant disagrees with the Decision, but she has presented no basis to reconsider it. The Request is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 13^th^ day of October, 2012.
“Signed by”
_________________________________
Michelle Flaherty Member