HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
C. by her litigation guardian D.B.
Applicant
-and-
Waterloo Catholic District School Board
Respondent
A N D B E T W E E N:
C. by her litigation guardian D.B.
Applicant
-and-
Waterloo Catholic District School Board, Glenn Sheculski, Rick Boisvert, Dawna Ward, Jodie Schnarr, and Roger Lawler
Respondents
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: David A. Wright
Date: June 5, 2013
Citation: 2013 HRTO 998
Indexed as: C. v. Waterloo Catholic District School Board
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
C. by her litigation guardian D.B., Applicant
D.B., Litigation Guardian
1The applicant requests reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision dismissing these Applications, 2013 HRTO 491. Her litigation guardian relies upon Rules 26.5 (a) (c) and (d) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. Rules 26.5 and 26.5.1 read 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.
26.5.1 A Request for Reconsideration made more than 30 days following the Decision will not be granted unless the Tribunal determines that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay.
2This Request for Reconsideration was made more than 30 days following the final Decision. In the circumstances, I need not decide whether the delay was incurred in good faith or no prejudice would result because, even assuming these conditions exist, the Request would be dismissed.
3Reconsideration is not an appeal, and is granted only in exceptional cases. As the Tribunal stated in Sigrist and Carson v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 34, at para. 56:
As is evident from the Rules and made explicit in Practice Direction #4, reconsideration is not an appeal. It is not an opportunity to re-argue a case. Once the parties to a case 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.
4The applicant suggests that Rule 26.5 (a) is met because another family living in Waterloo with the same disability “was not accommodated properly until they pushed hard and received no transition planning (life connections after high school)”. This information would not potentially be determinative of the issues in the Applications, which relate to alleged breach of settlement and the question of whether the organizational respondent discriminated against the applicant, who was not attending any of its schools. Moreover, the applicant does not explain why this information could not reasonably have been obtained earlier.
5The applicant’s other arguments are merely disagreement with the reasoning in the Decision and reiterate arguments that were made or could have been made before the adjudicator. As stated in Sigrist, supra, at para. 54 regarding Rule 26.5 (c), a conflict with established jurisprudence requires more than just an argument that a decision is inconsistent with another case:
Given the public interest in finality of decision-making and economy of legal proceedings, as discussed above, a decision should not be reconsidered on the basis of an assertion of an apparent conflict with the result reached in another decision. There must be a conflict with “established” jurisprudence or procedure in the sense that there is a settled understanding about the legal rules that apply, and a clear and surprising departure from those legal rules.
6Reconsideration is not granted because of disagreement with the adjudicator’s conclusions, nor because a party wishes to call further evidence it decided not to call earlier. There are no factors here that would meet the criteria of Rules 26.5 (a) and (c), and nothing that would outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.
7The Request for Reconsideration is therefore dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 5th day of June, 2013
“Signed by” __________________________________
David A. Wright
Associate Chair