Mary Szabo v. Regional Municipality of Niagara, 2012 HRTO 2413

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mary Szabo

Applicant

-and-

Regional Municipality of Niagara

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta

Date: December 31, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 2413

Indexed as: Szabo v. Niagara (Regional Municipality)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Mary Szabo, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleged that she suffered harassment, discrimination and reprisal in employment on the grounds of sex, family status and marital status and that she was subjected to sexual solicitation or advances. The respondent disputed the allegations.

2A decision in this matter was issued on May 14, 2010, dismissing the Application. A Request for Reconsideration was filed on October 22, 2012, more than two years following the issuance of the decision in question, 2010 HRTO 1083.

3On November 2, 2012, the applicant sent in a further package of documents in support of the reconsideration request. This package included a 16-page letter dated December 30, 2009, addressed to the Premier of the province of Ontario, the then Attorney General and the Ombudsman, and copied to various other entities and agencies, itemizing the applicant’s concerns and complaints about the May 14, 2010 Tribunal decision in her case, as well as her views regarding other flaws in the human rights system. The applicant has also sent in a copy of a newspaper article from a southwestern Ontario newspaper that does not contain any specific mention of or reference to the applicant’s case.

4A 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, the Tribunal did not deem it necessary to seek submissions from the respondent.

5For the reasons that follow, this request for reconsideration is denied.

DECISION

6Section 45.7 of the Code allows any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal to request that it reconsider its decision. The Rules elaborate on the conditions and requirements of such a request.

7Rule 26.1 states that “any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within 30 days from the date of the decision”.

8This request was filed more than two years after the decision was issued. The applicant provides no satisfactory explanation for the extreme delay in filing the request except to say the following in the body of her materials:

As to the lateness of this request, it is because HRTO and the process has deteriorated my faith in justice and the system, and I was discouraged that HRTO did not provide me with a response for the reasons for the Decision. I have made a personal decision that I must pursue this in an effort to close this matter and ask HRTO to reconsider my case without prejudice. I have suffered severe unmitigated mental, personal, professional, and financial harms as a result of being denied justice.

9The applicant’s stated reasons for delaying filing of the reconsideration request are not compelling, given that she was clearly able to itemize her concerns regarding the decision in writing, as evidenced by the December 30, 2009 letter sent to a number of parties at the time and filed in support of the current request.

10Although I could have dismissed the request on the basis of the delay alone, I have reviewed the materials filed by the applicant in their entirety and find that the request cannot succeed for the following reasons.

11Pursuant to Rule 26.5, 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.

12It is also useful 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.

Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of its case.

13The applicant has checked off the boxes indicating that there are new facts or evidence that are now available and that could not have been obtained earlier that could be determinative of the issues and that the decision is in conflict with established jurisprudence and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance.

14As the Tribunal has often stated, a Request for Reconsideration is not an opportunity to restate or re-argue a position already advanced and considered. In her Request, the applicant has made no submissions that bear on the identified ground for reconsideration or, indeed, on any of the criteria outlined in either Rule 26 or the Practice Direction on Reconsideration. The thrust of her submissions merely reiterate arguments made earlier in the process and reasons she finds the process and the decision in her Application lacking. It is evident that the applicant disagrees with the Tribunal’s finding. However, she has presented no basis to reconsider the decision.

15The Request for Reconsideration is denied.