Adel Mekhail v. Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board, 2015 HRTO 1116

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Adel Mekhail

Applicant

-and-

Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren

Date: August 21, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1116

Indexed as: Mekhail v. Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Adel Mekhail, Applicant

Self-represented

1The applicant seeks reconsideration of the Decision 2015 HRTO 903, in which his Application was dismissed after a Summary Hearing.

2The Application was dismissed on the basis that the applicant had been unable to provide any details of evidence that he had or would have to rely on at a hearing of the merits of his Application that could demonstrate a link between the respondent’s alleged negative treatment of the applicant and the applicant’s race, colour, ethnicity, place of origin or ethnic origin. I found that there was no reasonable prospect that the Application would succeed and I therefore dismissed the Application.

3The Request for Reconsideration filed by the applicant indicates that the reason for making this Request is that “there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier” (SIC).

4I find that the applicant has not demonstrated that his reasons for the reconsideration request meet any of the criteria in Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (“Rules”) that would allow me to grant a reconsideration of my Decision.

ANALYSIS OF THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

5In Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board et al., 2008 HRTO 34, the Tribunal stated that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case. Once the Tribunal has made a decision in a case, parties are entitled to treat the matter as closed, subject to limited exceptions.

6The circumstances in which a Request for Reconsideration may be granted are set out in Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules:

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.

7The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration includes the following statements:

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.

8As is evident from the above, reconsideration is a discretionary remedy. That is, while the Tribunal has the power to reopen and reconsider its own decisions, it is not obliged to do so. It may decide when reconsideration is advisable, both through the consideration of rules setting out conditions for the exercise of its discretion, and through the application of its discretion on a case-by-case basis.

9In his Request for Reconsideration, the applicant does not indicate what evidence he has that is new, that could be determinative of the case, and that he could not have reasonably retained earlier. The submissions in the Request do not reference any new evidence. The submissions repeat the allegations that were set out in the narrative of his Application and upon which he expanded during the Summary Hearing.

10The applicant attached documents to the Request. These documents were letters and notices addressed to him which pre-date the date he filed his Application; his 2010 test results from his college course; job postings; and a letter with respect to a grievance he filed. Most of these documents were listed as documents that support the Application. He does not claim that this is new evidence. All of these documents were referenced by the applicant in his submissions during the Summary Hearing so he was obviously aware of them at the time of the Summary Hearing.

11It is apparent that the reason the applicant has filed the Request for Reconsideration is that he disagrees with my Decision. As I have indicated above, the Tribunal’s reconsideration power is discretionary and does not represent an opportunity for the applicant to reargue his case.

ORDER

12I deny the Request for Reconsideration for the reasons set out above.