Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Nepthys Aberdeen Applicant
-and-
Governing Council of the University of Toronto Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané Date: May 13, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 791 Indexed as: Aberdeen v. Governing Council of the University of Toronto
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Nepthys Aberdeen, Applicant
Self-represented
Introduction
1The applicant filed an Application on May 31, 2010 under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) alleging discrimination and reprisal in the areas of services, goods and facilities on the basis of sex, race, ethnic origin and disability.
2On January 25, 2013 the Tribunal issued Decision 2013 HRTO 138 (the “Decision”), dismissing the Application.
3The applicant has made a Request for reconsideration of the Decision. The applicant has made a number of submissions including that I did not give her evidence due consideration, that I favoured the respondent’s evidence over hers and that the Decision was untimely. She also questions that on the second to last day of hearing I did not permit her to give her evidence through a lie detector test or under hypnosis. She also takes issue with some of the Interim Decisions rendered by the Tribunal in this matter which limited the scope of the evidence that she could call including Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 2514, which limited the scope of her Application.
4The Tribunal did not direct the respondent to file any submissions with respect to this Request. Despite the fact that the applicant has filed the Request beyond the time limit specified by the Rules, I will address the Request on its merits.
5For the reasons that follow the applicant’s Request to reconsider is denied.
The Law
6Under 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.
7The Tribunal has issued Rules governing such requests most relevant to this Decision is Rule 26 which 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.
8Reconsideration is a discretionary remedy. That is, while the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to reopen and reconsider its own decisions, it is not obliged to do so. It may decide when reconsideration is advisable, both through the promulgation of rules setting out conditions for the exercise of its discretion, and through the application of its discretion on a case-by-case basis.
9I find that the applicant has not met the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration. In support of her Request, the applicant is essentially repeating arguments made previously to the Tribunal which were not accepted. A request for reconsideration is not an opportunity to restate or re-argue a position already advanced and considered.
10In sum, I find that the applicant has not established the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26 that would lead to reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Final Decision.
11The Request for Reconsideration is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 13th day of May, 2013.
”signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair