HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Hana Abdul
Applicant
-and-
Royal Bank of Canada and Susan Tersigni
Respondents
rECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Mary Truemner
Indexed as: Abdul v. Royal Bank of Canada
1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on October 11, 2011, in which she alleges discrimination on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin and ethnic origin in services. The corporate respondent is a bank. The personal respondent is a senior manager of operations in the Student Loans Department. The only apparent reason that the applicant named her as a respondent is that she signed the correspondence from the bank to the applicant requesting that she repay her loan.
2The Tribunal issued a Decision dismissing the Application, 2011 HRTO 2323, finding that the Code, which only applies to matters that fall within provincial jurisdiction, does not apply to banks, and the Tribunal therefore has no jurisdiction over the Application.
3On January 23, 2012, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration, (“Request”). 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, the Tribunal did not deem it necessary to seek submissions from the respondents.
4For the reasons that follow, the Request is dismissed. The applicant has presented no basis to reconsider the Tribunal’s Decision.
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. 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.
6Reconsideration 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.
7In her Request, the applicant indicates that the Decision ought to be reconsidered for all four of the reasons listed in s.45.7. She argues that the lack of a Response from the respondents is a reason for reconsideration. She also refers to continuing inquiries from people related to the bank, presumably contacting her to collect on the student loan, but does not explain how that is related to any of the four reasons cited. Her brief submissions do not:
a) provide new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier;
b) demonstrate that the applicant did not receive notice of the Tribunal’s intention to dismiss the Application for jurisdictional reasons;
c) refer to conflicting jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure or to any matter of general or public importance; nor
d) list other factors that exist that might outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.
5While it is apparent that the applicant disagrees with the Decision, she has presented no basis to reconsider it. The Request is denied.
6Dated at Toronto, this 7th day of March, 2012.
“Signed by”
Mary Truemner
Vice-chair