HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Mokhtar Beldjehem
Applicant
-and-
University of Ottawa (Telfer School of Management) and Jacques Barrette
Respondents
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Paul Aterman
Indexed as: Beldjehem v. University of Ottawa (Telfer School of Management)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Mokhtar Beldjehem, Applicant
Self-represented
1In Decision 2014 HRTO 657 I dismissed the applicant’s Application. He has requested a reconsideration of that Decision. The request is denied and the reasons below explain why.
2Section 45.7 of the Code provides the Tribunal with authority to reconsider its decisions. Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provides that 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;
(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;
(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.
3The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration states the following:
Parties may ask the HRTO to reconsider a final decision. The HRTO may also reconsider a decision on its own initiative where it considers it appropriate.
Reconsideration is a discretionary remedy; there is no right to have a decision reconsidered by the HRTO. Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to change the way it presented its case.
The rules for reconsideration are found in Rule 26 of the Rules of Procedure. A request for reconsideration will only be granted if the request meets one of the requirements in Rule 26.5.
Examples of situations where the HRTO has refused a request for reconsideration are where:
the request asks for review of an interim decision which does not finally decide the party’s rights or interests;
the request repeats arguments the party has made at the hearing or in written submissions;
a party disagrees with and wishes to challenge a finding of fact, including findings made about the credibility of witnesses;
a party wishes to raise new arguments that were not made, but could have been made at the hearing or in written submissions;
a party received notice that an application could be dismissed as abandoned if steps were not taken, but did not follow the Tribunal’s directions by the deadline.
Examples of situations where the HRTO has reconsidered its decision are:
where a party, through no fault of its own, did not receive notice of a hearing or request for submissions; or
where exceptional factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of decisions including inconsistencies in the HRTO’s case law.
4The Practice Direction also explains that in most cases the Tribunal will assign a request for reconsideration to the adjudicator who made the original Decision. Court decisions have endorsed the Tribunal’s practice in this regard. The applicant asks that this not be done in his case because he thinks I did not act fairly in deciding his Application in the first place.
5The applicant appears to base his request for reconsideration on the first of the four factors in Rule 26.5. He maintains that the Decision should be reconsidered because he has new facts or evidence that should be considered. He has provided a 39 page submission arguing that his Application was wrongly decided. It examines each paragraph of the Decision and sets out the applicant’s views of my analysis of the evidence and application of the law paragraph by paragraph.
6In doing so, the applicant has not brought forward any new facts or evidence. Rather his submissions systematically contest my assessment of the evidence that was brought forward at the hearing. In doing so he makes extensive reference to the evidence that was brought out at the hearing but not to any new evidence. In effect, he is attempting to reargue his case. The Tribunal has consistently held that the purpose of the reconsideration process is not to allow parties to reargue matters which the Tribunal has already considered and decided.
7The applicant also argues that the Tribunal’s failure to conduct an inquiry into his allegations of discrimination is evidence of an injustice. The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and its forms, including the Confirmation of Hearing, make clear that each party is responsible for presenting its case. It is the responsibility of each party – not the Tribunal – to bring forward the documentary and oral evidence that it believes is supportive of its arguments. This was also made clear to the applicant in the Tribunal’s Case Assessment Direction of March 13, 2014 which set out the process for each party to prepare its evidence for the hearing.
8The applicant clearly thinks that the Decision is wrong and that I misapprehended the evidence. If he wishes to pursue that concern or the failure of the Tribunal to conduct an inquiry into his allegations, the proper route is to commence an application for judicial review of the Decision.
9The applicant has not brought forward any new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier. He has not met any of the criteria for reconsideration set out in Rule 26.5. For these reasons the request is denied.
order
10The request for reconsideration is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 25th day of July, 2014.
“Signed by”
Paul Aterman
Vice-chair