HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Linda May Bell

Applicant

-and-

Upper Grand District School Board, Tom Dagg, Cheryl Mosseau, Deb Megahay, Erin Psutka, Ian Phillips, Mac Howson, Bill McLellan, Stephen Magee, Martha Rogers, Bonnie Evans and Geoff Little

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: February 7, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 261

Indexed as: Bell v. Upper Grand District School Board

[1] On July 27, 2011, the applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, sex and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”). On December 16, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Decision, [2011 HRTO 2255](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2011/2255), dismissing the Application on the basis of delay.

[2] On January 16, 2012, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration (Form 20) (the “Request”) asking the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision.

[3] The Respondent Upper Grand District School Board (the “Board”) wrote in to say it believes the Request was without merit, but would await direction from the Tribunal before filing any further submissions. A respondent is not required to respond to a Request for Reconsideration unless directed to do so by the Tribunal. In the circumstances, the Tribunal did not deem it necessary to seek submissions from the respondents.

ANALYSIS

[4] Section 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. Pursuant 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.

[5] The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration gives guidance on how the Tribunal interprets its reconsideration powers. It 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.

[6] The applicant states the Request is based on, among other grounds, new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier. The applicant submits a chronology of what appears to be her allegations and employment status, but these are not new facts. Nor do they assist the applicant in demonstrating her Application was timely, in that the last matter which might be considered an allegation of discrimination is said to have occurred in the fall 2009.

[7] The Request makes reference to mental illness playing a “major part in the delay” as well as a “fear of reprisal,” but these likewise are not “new facts” and were, in fact, addressed in the Decision. The applicant has failed to set out any “compelling or extraordinary circumstances” on which the Tribunal might reconsider her case.

[8] The Request for Reconsideration is denied.

Dated at Toronto this 7^th^ day of February, 2012.

“signed by”

Naomi Overend

Vice-chair