Smith v. Ontario (Education), 2012 HRTO 762

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Deborah Smith

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Education, Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Board and Ontario Teachers’ Federation

Respondents

rECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty

Date: April 16, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 762

Indexed as: Smith v. Ontario (Education)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

)

Deborah Smith, Applicant ) Self-Represented

)

1In an earlier Decision, this Application was dismissed for delay pursuant to section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). I found that the Application was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident of alleged harassment and that the applicant had not provided a good faith reason for the delay, within the meaning of the Code: see 2012 HRTO 429. My Decision was based on written submissions filed by counsel for the respondents and written submissions filed by counsel for the applicant.

2On March 30, 2012, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration. 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, I did not deem it necessary to seek submissions from the respondents.

ANALYSIS

3Pursuant 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.

4Pursuant to Rule 26.1, a Request for Reconsideration must be filed within 30 days of the date of the Decision. Rule 26.5 states that a 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.

5Reconsideration 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.

6The applicant does not identify on which, if any, of the factors set out in Rule 26.5 her Request is based. She reiterates and attempts to expand upon the arguments contained in her earlier written submissions. She states that, in the circumstances of her case, there is a good faith explanation for the delay in fling the Application. These arguments were already advanced in the detailed written submissions prepared by the applicant’s counsel and they have been addressed in the Tribunal’s Decision.

7In the Request for Reconsideration, the applicant takes issues with paragraph 18 of the Decision, where I state:

For the purposes of determining the preliminary issue of timeliness, I am prepared to accept (without deciding) that the last alleged incident of discrimination took place on June 5, 2009. I note that the applicant has not alleged any continuing discrimination beyond the June 5, 2009 date.

8As is apparent from the earlier Decision, my conclusions on delay were based on the applicant’s own submissions regarding the last alleged incident of delay. These are contained in the written submissions filed by her counsel, at paragraph 35. Counsel wrote:

For the foregoing reasons, the Applicant submits that the limitation period started to run in June 2009 and accordingly, the Application meets the limitation period under section 34(1)(b) a “series of incidents”. (See also para. 26).

9In her Request for Reconsideration, the applicant disputes that the last alleged incident of discrimination occurred in June 2009. She writes:

As of the current date, discrimination continues as I am still unable to receive a full pension, nor am I permitted by the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan to purchase pension credits. Therefore, I am continuing to pursue my appeal.

10The applicant seeks to present an argument in her Request for Reconsideration that is different from the position she took earlier in the proceeding. As I have indicated, a reconsideration is not available simply because a party disagrees with the Tribunal’s Decision, and it is not an opportunity for a party to reargue the case or introduce new issues or arguments.

11While it is clear that the applicant disagrees with my earlier conclusions, she has presented no basis to reconsider them. I understand that the applicant is disappointed that her Application has been dismissed without a full hearing on its merits. However, as I indicated in the earlier Decision, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over this matter because it was filed outside the limitation period and because the applicant has not established a good faith reason for the delay.