HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Marybeth Cornutt (Trueman)
Applicant
-and-
The Community Legal Clinic of York Region, Dennis Bailey, and Melinda Ferlisi
Respondents
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty
Indexed as: Cornutt v. The Community Legal Clinic of York Region
1The applicant has filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended. In a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated December 28, 2011, the Tribunal directed that the matter proceed by way of a summary hearing. The respondents were directed not to file a Response at this stage of the proceeding.
2On February 6, 2012, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“Request”) seeking to amend the Application to revise and add to her description of the alleged incidents of discrimination. The Request was granted: see 2012 HRTO 419.
3The applicant filed a further Request seeking to cancel the summary hearing. She argued that she is prejudiced by the fact that the respondents have not been required to file a Response. She also argued that the content of her amended Application establishes a reasonable prospect of success.
4In a CAD dated March 12, 2012, I denied the applicant’s request to cancel the summary hearing. I wrote:
At the summary hearing, the applicant will have an opportunity to identify evidence or information she expects to obtain (from the respondents’ Responses or otherwise) that she believes will assist her in establishing that the Application has a reasonable prospect of success. She will also have an opportunity to argue that the Application, as amended, should not be dismissed on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect of success.
5On April 13, 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
6Pursuant to section 45.7 of the Code, any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may request that it reconsider its final decision. The Rules elaborate on the conditions and requirements of such a request.
7Pursuant to Rule 26.1, 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.
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 Request, the applicant indicates that the CAD ought to be reconsidered because there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier, the Decision is in conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure and because other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of the Decision.
10The applicant’s Request concerns a preliminary or procedural direction, in which the Tribunal refused to cancel a summary hearing. Because it is not a final decision within the meaning of the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration, the CAD is not properly the subject of a request for Reconsideration.
11In any event, in her Request, the applicant reiterates and reframes the arguments contained in her earlier written submissions. While it is clear that she disagrees with my decision not to cancel the summary hearing, the applicant has provided no basis to reconsider it.
DECISION
12The Request for Reconsideration is denied. The summary hearing will proceed as scheduled.
Dated at Toronto, this 30th day of April, 2012.
”signed by”
Michelle Flaherty
Vice Chair