AiLian Ou v. Sheridan Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning, 2013 HRTO 286

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

AiLian Ou

Applicant

-and-

Sheridan Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: February 20, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 286

Indexed as: Ou v. Sheridan Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

AiLian Ou, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2On January 16, 2013 the Tribunal issued a Decision dismissing the Application 2013 HRTO 79.

3On February 14, 2013, the Tribunal received a Request for Reconsideration from the applicant.

4Section 45.7 of the Code provides the Tribunal with explicit authority to reconsider its decisions. Further to its power to make rules, the Tribunal has issued rules governing Requests for Reconsideration as well as a Practice Direction to provide guidance to the community on the Tribunal’s exercise of its reconsideration powers.

5Most relevant is Rule 26 which reads in part as follows:

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 and orders.

6The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration begins with the following statements:

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.

7In her Request for Reconsideration the applicant relies on Rule 26.5 (c) and (d). In support of the request the applicant made the following submissions:

• The Decision is filled with false statements;
• I accepted false evidence;
• My decision “unprecedentedly violated the law of Canada and corrupted the legal system of Canada”;
• I ignored the applicant’s victim impact statement;
• I denied the applicant’s right to cross-examine a respondent witness;
• I abused my judicial powers to intimidate and silence the applicant;

8The applicant did not point to any decision that would indicate that my decision is in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure or provide any reason to conclude that the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance. Accordingly, there is no basis for granting reconsideration pursuant to Rule 26(5).

9A Vice-chair acting in a biased or unprofessional manner could be factors that would outweigh the public interest in the finality of the Tribunal’s decision. However, the applicant’s claim that I abused my judicial powers to intimidate and silence her is an unparticularized bald assertion. I did give directions to the applicant regarding her conduct and warned her when she did not comply with my directions, which was well within my authority and both necessary and appropriate in the circumstances. It is the case that the applicant did not have the opportunity to cross-examine a respondent witness but that was because the witness was never called by the respondent.

10In my view, the applicant’s submissions described no factors that outweigh the public interest in the finality of the Decision in question. Consequently, there is no basis for granting reconsideration pursuant to Rule 26.5(d). The applicant provided no reason to conclude that compelling and extraordinary circumstances exist that would call for reconsideration of the decision to dismiss this Application.

11The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.