HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Hana Abdul Applicant

-and-

Governing Council of the University of Toronto Respondent

AND BETWEEN:

Hana Abdul Applicant

-and-

York University Respondent

AND BETWEEN:

Hana Abdul Applicant

-and-

Mpenzi: Black Women’s International Film and Video Festival and Governing Council of the University of Toronto Respondents

AND BETWEEN:

Hana Abdul Applicant

-and-

Hot Docs Management & Board Respondent

AND BETWEEN:

Hana Abdul Applicant

-and-

Inside Out Film Festival Respondent

AND BETWEEN:

Hana Abdul Applicant

-and-

Oxfam Canada Management Respondent

AND BETWEEN:

Hana Abdul Applicant

-and-

Women’s College Hospital Respondent

AND BETWEEN:

Hana Abdul Applicant

-and-

Meloche Monnex Financial Services Inc. Respondent

AND BETWEEN:

Hana Abdul Applicant

-and-

City of Toronto, and T. Berhanu Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner Date: March 7, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 487 Indexed as: Abdul v. University of Toronto

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Hana Abdul, Applicant ) Self-represented

INTRODUCTION

1The applicant filed these 9 Applications under s. 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). All of the Applications allege discrimination in services, goods and facilities on the basis of race with one or more related grounds such as colour, ancestry, ethnic origin, place of origin and citizenship. In some of the Applications, age and/or creed is also listed as a ground.

2None of the Applications clearly describe how the respondents allegedly violated the applicant’s right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities without discrimination because of the grounds cited in the Applications. Similarly, the documents attached to the Applications do not appear to explain why the applicant believes her rights under the Code were violated. The Tribunal therefore directed that a consolidated summary hearing by way of teleconference be held for these Applications and two others to determine two issues: 1) whether the Applications should be dismissed, in whole or in part, on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that they will succeed; and 2) whether the applicant should be declared a vexatious litigant and barred from filing further applications without leave of the Tribunal.

3On December 23, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Decision, 2011 HRTO 2299, (“the Decision”) which dismissed the Applications and declared the applicant a vexatious litigant so that she must obtain leave from the Tribunal prior to filing further applications.

4For all but two of the Applications dismissed in the Decision, the applicant has filed Requests that the Tribunal reconsider the Decision dismissing the Applications, but she did not make any requests for the Tribunal to reconsider its finding that she is a vexatious litigant.

5A respondent is not required to respond to a Request for Reconsideration unless directed to do so by the Tribunal. In the circumstances of these Requests, the Tribunal did not deem it necessary to seek submissions from the respondents.

6For the reasons that follow, the Requests for Reconsideration are dismissed. The applicant has presented no basis to reconsider the Decision.

ANALYSIS

7Pursuant 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.

8Reconsideration 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.

9In her Requests, the applicant indicates that the Decision ought to be reconsidered for all four of the reasons listed in s.45.7. In her explanation as to why these four reasons are applicable, the applicant generally argues the same thing for each Application for which she is requesting reconsideration:

• The respondents did not file Responses to the Applications and therefore she argues they are not disputing the allegations
• The respondents may not have received the Applications
• There may be different legal names for the respondents
• The Tribunal’s relationship with the respondents and what is alleged to be discriminatory is unknown so that there may be a conflict or bias.

10Her brief submissions for three of the Applications included a mention that the representatives for the respondents verbally harassed the applicant during the summary hearing, which, as noted above, was held by way of teleconference. I presided over that summary hearing, and I do not agree that anyone harassed the applicant during it.

11The applicant’s submissions for the Requests for Reconsideration 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.

12I also note that there is no basis for the applicant to allege any conflict or bias on the part of the Tribunal or its members. Prior to hearing the Applications, I verified that I was not in any position of conflict or bias. While it is apparent that the applicant disagrees with the Decision, she has presented no basis to reconsider the dismissal of any of the Applications it addressed. The Requests for Reconsideration are denied.