James v. York University, 2014 HRTO 380

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Paul James

Applicant

-and-

York University

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman

Date: March 17, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 380

Indexed as: James v. York University

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Paul James, Applicant

Self-represented

1This Decision explains why the Tribunal will not reconsider its Decision of April 16, 2013, 2013 HRTO 633, which dismissed the applicant’s Application on grounds of delay.

2The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability. He was employed by the respondent as a Master Soccer Coach from the end of 2003 to January of 2010. He alleged that in the course of his employment he suffered from an addiction and depression, that the respondent knew or ought to have known of his disabilities and that it failed to accommodate them. He alleged that the respondent’s failure to do so effectively forced him to resign from his employment.

3The Application was dismissed because the last incident of discrimination took place in early 2010, the Application was filed in October of 2012 and the applicant had not demonstrated that his delay in filing the Application was incurred in good faith.

4In the present request he argues that the Decision to dismiss his Application should be reconsidered because there are new facts or evidence that is potentially determinative of the Application and that could not have been obtained earlier. He also maintains that there are other factors that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions. He has provided 57 pages of written submissions and over 200 pages of supporting documents.

5The request for reconsideration itself was made to the Tribunal on February 19, 2014, some 10 months after the Decision dismissing this Application. Rule 26 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure requires that a request to reconsider a decision be made within 30 days of the date of the Tribunal’s decision.

6Leaving aside the issue of the lateness of the applicant’s request for reconsideration, I have considered the substance of the request itself and determine that there are not sufficient reasons to justify reconsideration.

7Section 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.

8The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration states the following:

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.

9The applicant maintains that the Decision dismissing his Application should be reconsidered because I failed to understand the nature and depth of his disabling addiction. While he clearly disagrees with the Decision, his submissions are an attempt to reargue what the Tribunal has already decided. The scope of the Tribunal’s reconsideration process is circumscribed by the four criteria set out in Rule 26.5 above. It does not extend to allowing parties to relitigate the Tribunal’s decision by repairing deficiencies in the original presentation of their case.

10Here the applicant’s lengthy arguments are supported by numerous documents about his disabilities, his financial circumstances, dealings with the respondent and with his own counsel. Most of these documents predate the Decision dismissing his Application and he has not shown that any of these could not reasonably have been obtained and provided in support of his original submissions not to dismiss the Application for delay.

11The documents which postdate the Decision are ones in which the applicant writes to various persons or institutions, asking them to provide information relating to his disabilities and attempts to treat them in the period preceding the filing of his Application. In some instances there are responses to the applicant’s requests and these responses provide details about his disabilities and treatment attempts in the period before he filed his Application. In other instances the institutions indicate that they either have no records of treating him or that the records cannot be accessed. However the applicant has not shown that any of these documents could not reasonably have been obtained at the time he made his submissions to the Tribunal about whether his Application should be dismissed for delay.

12The applicant has also not shown that there are other factors that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions. I understand that he disagrees with the Decision and that he is of the view that the Tribunal failed to understand how debilitating his disabilities were in relation to the timely filing of his Application. However, a party’s dissatisfaction with the outcome of the Tribunal’s process is not, of itself, a consideration that outweighs the public interest in the finality of that process.

order

13The request for reconsideration is denied.