Shaw v. Cox, 2012 HRTO 2398

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Derrick Shaw

Applicant

-and-

Robin Cox

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright

Date: December 27, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 2398

Indexed as: Shaw v. Cox

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Derrick Shaw, Applicant

Self-represented

Robin Cox, Respondent

Jason Green, Counsel

1The applicant seeks reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, 2012 HRTO 1949, dismissing this Application on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. The applicant alleged that the respondent, the Chair of English and ESL at Centennial College, discriminated against him on the basis of age, race and gender when she failed to offer him a further employment contract as a college teacher.

2The respondent set out in the Response that her reasons for not offering the applicant another contract were based on her assessment of the applicant’s performance. The response noted specific concerns, notably: (i) her observations of the applicant’s classroom performance; (ii) the applicant’s failure to attend a feedback session with her after the observation; and (iii) his failure to schedule a new one as he was directed to do after he did not attend the first one. The applicant filed no reply other than to indicate that these statements were patently false and misleading. By Case Assessment Direction, the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be held on whether the Application should be dismissed, in whole or in part, on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success and pointed to the lack of reply.

3In her Decision, the adjudicator applied established case law and held that the applicant was unable to point to any evidence during the summary hearing that would indicate that the respondent discriminated against the applicant on the basis of age, race, or gender. She found that the applicant’s theory was based on assumptions and there was no evidentiary basis to find that he was discriminated against on prohibited grounds. She noted that his claim was based essentially on his intention to rely upon statistics about the composition of Centennial’s teachers, and that the applicant could not think of anything that happened between him and the respondent that might show discrimination.

4In support of his Request for Reconsideration, the applicant relies upon Rule 26.5 (c) and (d) which read as follows:

26.5 A Request for Reconsideration will not be granted unless the Tribunal is satisfied that:

(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.

5The applicant states that the Tribunal’s conclusions are based upon “fallacies and misrepresentations of fact” by the respondents relied upon by the Tribunal. He takes issue with the caselaw relied upon by the Tribunal, which he says does not apply to his case.

6Reconsideration is not an appeal, and is granted only in exceptional cases. As the Tribunal stated in Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34, at para. 56:

As is evident from the Rules and made explicit in Practice Direction #4, reconsideration is not an appeal. It is not an opportunity to re-argue a case. Once the parties to a case 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.

7There is no basis for reconsideration. Having heard the applicant’s explanation of how he would be able to relate the non-renewal of his contract to the prohibited grounds, the Tribunal held that there was no reasonable prospect that he could prove discrimination on a balance of probabilities. There was no misapplication of case law, as the decision applied the Tribunal’s leading case on summary hearings, Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994 for the general principles it established. Dabic was brought to the applicant’s attention in the Case Assessment Direction. Despite the applicant’s allegations that the respondents have misled the Tribunal, he has not provided any specifics of what he says was untrue or how he would show this, or how he would prove discrimination on the grounds he alleges in the circumstances of this case.

8The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.