Agyei-Abankwa v. University of Windsor, 2012 HRTO 685

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Kevin Agyei-Abankwa

Applicant

-and-

University of Windsor and Ruth Betoria

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: April 3, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 685

Indexed as: Agyei-Abankwa v. University of Windsor

1The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration (the “Request”) on February 10, 2012, which requested reconsideration of my Decision, 2012 HRTO 92, issued on January 13, 2012 (the “Decision”). In the Decision, I dismissed the Application because it was filed more than one year after the incidents which were alleged to be discrimination, and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with the Application because the delay was not in good faith.

2A 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, and they have not responded to the Request.

3Under section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, ch. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), the Tribunal may, at the request of a party or on its own initiative, reconsider a final decision in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules. Rule 26.5 provides:

A Request for 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.

4On his Request for Reconsideration form, the applicant indicated with check marks the criterion identified in Rule 26.5(a) and (d), but in response to the direction on the form to provide detailed reasons and representations in support of his Request, the applicant did not particularize any new facts or evidence, or any other factors that might outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

5When considering a request for reconsideration, it is 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.

6The applicant states, “I just want to complete my degree, that’s all!!!” No submissions were attached to his Request for Reconsideration, and it appears that the applicant simply wants a reversal of the dismissal of his Application.

7Reconsideration is not available simply because a party disagrees with a decision by the Tribunal. Without new facts or evidence to show that the delay was in good faith, or an explanation of what factors exist to counter the public importance of the finality of decisions, the requirements of Rule 26.5 are not met. The Request is therefore dismissed.