Kim v. The Governing Council of the University of Toronto, 2014 HRTO 444

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Helen Kim

Applicant

-and-

The Governing Council of the University of Toronto, Office of the Independent Police Review Director, and The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: March 28, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 444

Indexed as: Kim v. The Governing Council of the University of Toronto

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Helen Kim, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1The purpose of this Reconsideration Decision is to address the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, 2013 HRTO 1957, which dismissed the Application.

BACKGROUND

2On July 11, 2013, the applicant filed nine Applications, which named each respondent in at least one of them, checked off nearly every ground and social area in the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), and described incidents that allegedly occurred between 1992 and 1998, and between the beginning of the 2012-2013 academic year at the University of Toronto and June 25, 2013. She also alleged that the respondents discriminated against her because of her relationship, association or dealings with a person or persons identified by a prohibited ground of discrimination, and that the respondents subjected her to reprisals.

3On November 21, 2013, a summary hearing took place. On November 26, 2013, the Tribunal issued a Decision, which dismissed the Applications on a preliminary basis because the allegations therein were either outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because of a lack of timeliness, or had no reasonable prospect of success.

4On December 3, 2013, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision. Subsequently, she also filed a number of emails and documents in support of her Request.

ANALYSIS

5Section 45.7(1) of the Code provides that any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may request that the Tribunal reconsider a final decision in accordance with the Tribunal rules.

6Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that 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.

7The Tribunal has also issued a Practice Direction on Reconsideration to provide guidance to the community on the nature of the reconsideration process. The Practice Direction states, in part:

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.

8In her Request for Reconsideration, the applicant indicated that the Tribunal’s Decision should be reconsidered in accordance with Rule 26.5 a), c) and d). However, in her submissions in support of her Request, which were brief, she did not explain how her Request falls within the criteria set out in Rule 26.5 a), c) and d). Instead, she repeated one of the same arguments that she made at the hearing, and then made a number of statements that are not related to the reconsideration issues before the Tribunal.

9Reconsideration is not available simply because a party disagrees with the Tribunal’s Decision, and it is not an opportunity for a party to reargue the case.

ORDER

10The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.