Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Michele Van Bauwel

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Transit Commission

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: July 12, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1228

Indexed as: Van Bauwel v. Toronto Transit Commission

Introduction

[1] The applicant has filed a Request for Reconsideration of Decision 2013 HRTO 801 (“the Decision”). The Decision dismissed the Application because most of the allegations related to alleged events that occurred more than one year before the Application was filed and because there was no reasonable prospect of success that the applicant could establish discrimination contrary to the Code with regard to any of the events alleged to have occurred within one year of when the Application was filed.

[2] Under section 45.7 of the Code, the Tribunal may, at the request of a party or on its own initiative, reconsider its decisions in accordance with Tribunal’s Rules:

45.7(1) Any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may request that the Tribunal reconsider its decision in accordance with the Tribunal rules.

(2) Upon request under subsection (1) or on its own motion, the Tribunal may reconsider its decision in accordance with its rules.

3Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states:

26.5. 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.

4The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration states:

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.

The Request for Reconsideration

5In the Request for Reconsideration (“the Request”), the applicant essentially repeats the same arguments and submissions that she put forward during the hearing. The Request also adds some further details that were not put forward during the hearing. However, it appears that all of these further details were available to the applicant at the time of the original hearing and could have been provided at that time.

6As noted above, the purpose of the Reconsideration process is not to give a party another opportunity to make their case or to provide supplementary information. Once the parties have had the opportunity to present their evidence and arguments to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal has made a decision disposing of the issues, parties are entitled to treat the matter as closed, subject to limited exceptions.

7The purpose of the hearing in this case was to allow the applicant to provide all of the information that she has that is relevant to the Application and specifically with respect to the issues set out in the Case Assessment Direction of December 7, 2013. Those issues included the delay issue and the Case Assessment Direction expressly noted that the applicant had not to that time provided any explanation for the delay.

8From my review of the Request, I can see nothing that could be considered to be new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier. The information in the Request instead seems to me to be a restatement of the arguments that were already made or further details that could have been provided at the time of the hearing.

9The Request does not suggest that there was an issue with respect to notice of the hearing or that the Decision is in conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure. I cannot find that there are other factors that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions. I accordingly must conclude that the Request does not establish the existence of any of the factors that the Tribunal may apply when considering a Request for Reconsideration.

10One of the explanations for the delay in filing the Application that the applicant mentions in the Request and that was not mentioned during the hearing is that she had difficulty completing the Tribunal’s on-line forms. She says that she was unable to complete the forms and that when she complained to the Tribunal she was informed that there was “a glitch” in the system. I note that the Tribunal considered that the Application was filed on May 7, 2012 although it was not at that time complete. The applicant was accordingly asked to complete sections of the Application that were not completed in the Application that was filed on May 7, 2012. From the Request, it is apparent that the difficulties that the applicant experienced were in relation to her attempts to complete the sections of the Application. These difficulties, while unfortunate, do not appear to provide a good faith explanation for why the Application was not filed within one year. However, the applicant's difficulties have been brought to the attention of the Tribunal Registrar.

DECISION

11The applicant's Request for Reconsideration is denied.