Papanicolopoulou v. University of Windsor, 2015 HRTO 1484

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Angela Papanicolopoulou

Applicant

-and-

University of Windsor, Reza Nakhaie, and Robert Arnold

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: November 4, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1484

Indexed as: Papanicolopoulou v. University of Windsor

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Angela Papanicolopoulou, Applicant

Self-represented

1The applicant has requested a reconsideration of Tribunal Decision 2015 HRTO 1160 (“the Decision”).

2Under section 45.7 of the Code, the Tribunal may, at the request of a party or on its own initiative, reconsider its decisions in accordance with Tribunal’s Rules.

3Rule 26 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states:

26.1 Any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within (thirty) 30 days of the date of the decision

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.

4The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration 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 or an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of its case.

The reconsideration request

5In the reconsideration request, the applicant identifies procedural issues that she alleges were not dealt with appropriately and which she suggests support the request for reconsideration. She also identifies things that she says are errors in the Decision.

Background

6The first day of hearing in this matter was May 14, 2015. As set out in a Case Assessment Direction dated April 20, 2015, it was determined that, if the parties wished, the day would be spent engaging in settlement discussions pursuant to Rule 15A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and then dealing with various preliminary issues in the event that settlement was not reached. Most of the day on Mary 14, 2015 was spent in settlement discussions between the parties, with me acting as mediator pursuant to the Tribunal’s mediation/adjudication model. When settlement did not result, I heard submissions about the issues in the Application. These included the question of whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to deal with events in December 2012 and earlier because the Application was not filed within one year of those events. In addition, I heard submissions on the applicant request to amend the Application to include allegations of reprisal.

7Following this, I issued Interim Decision 2015 HRTO 754. It dismissed the allegations about events in December 2012 and earlier because of delay. The applicant’s request to add allegations of reprisal was granted.

8As a consequence of this decision, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to deal with the applicant's allegations of discrimination on the part of the respondents in relation to her unsuccessful completion of her Ph.D. program. The only remaining issue was whether the applicant had experienced reprisal.

Disclosure of documents and witness statements

9At the hearing on May 14, 2015, it was identified that the applicant had not received the respondents’ book of hearing documents. The respondents’ counsel advised that copies had been sent to the Tribunal and the applicant on April 1, 2015. The Tribunal received a copy by email and by courier. However, the applicant said that she had not received a copy. The respondents provided the applicant with a copy on May 19, 2015. However, the applicant states that she did not receive a copy of the will-say statements for the respondents’ proposed witnesses and had to ask for that to be sent to her as well.

10The respondents prepared revised witness statements because the issue of reprisal had been added to the applicant’s allegations. The applicant says that she only received these a few days before the hearing reconvened on August 24, 2015.

11The applicant suggests that the respondents failed to comply with their disclosure obligations under the Tribunal’s Rules and that she may have been prejudiced as a result.

12With respect to the problem of when the applicant received the original and revised witness statements, the applicant states that as a result of the delay in getting them, she was denied the opportunity to properly defend herself against the respondents’ allegations about her.

13The applicant does not suggest that she experienced any actual prejudice. She agrees that she received the respondents’ documents in advance of the hearing on August 24, 2015, which was when the evidence of the parties was heard. She does not identify how the submissions on the issue of delay would have been any different if she had received the respondents’ book of documents in advance of the May hearing.

14I note that as a result of the internal university investigations, the respondents’ witnesses had provided comprehensive information about their versions of the events. There was nothing new in the witness statements except in regard to the applicant’s allegations or reprisal. However, again the applicant does not identify anything that she would have done differently at the hearing if she had received the witness statements earlier or any information in the witness statements that she was not already well aware of.

15I find that the applicant's concerns about the disclosure of documents and witness statements do not provide a reason to reconsider the Decision.

Mediation/adjudication

16As noted, on May 14, 2015, the parties engaged in settlement discussions with my assistance pursuant to Rule 15A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. That Rule provides that the parties will be asked to sign a mediation/agreement before the mediation commences. The applicant states that she does not recall signing such an agreement on May 14, 2015.

17The applicant does not allege that she did not understand the mediation/adjudication process which was identified in a Case Assessment Direction dated April 20, 2015, and which was reviewed in detail at the hearing on May 14, 2015.

18The fact that the applicant does not recall signing an agreement is not a reason to reconsider the Decision.

Errors in the Decision

19The Application was filed on June 27, 2014. This was discussed in the Interim Decision, dealing with the timeliness of the Application.

20The applicant notes that at paragraph 3 of the Decision, it is stated that the Application was filed in September 2014. The applicant notes that this is not correct. I agree that the Application was filed on June 27, 2014, and that the reference to September 2014 at paragraph 3 of the Decision is not correct.

21The applicant notes that the Decision indicates that the internal human rights complaint was completed in June 2014. She states that this is partially true but that she had a subsequent meeting with the investigator in July 2014 although the investigator did not issue any further report.

22It is not clear what, if anything, turns on these points or how the dates support the request for reconsideration.

23The applicant notes that the Decision indicated that Danielle Soulliere was a member of the applicant’s dissertation committee. She states that Professor Soulliere was not a member of her committee but rather was the Chair of the Department of Sociology, and someone she had done work with in the past. The applicant does not identify what turns on this issue or how it supports the request for reconsideration.

24The Decision indicates that the applicant worked on her dissertation for many years. The request for reconsideration indicates that the applicant worked with Professor Nekhaie for about two years on a totally new topic and with a new committee.

25This history was noted and discussed in the Interim Decision and the Decision and it is not clear how the distinction is relevant to the request for reconsideration of the Decision which dealt with the issue or reprisal.

Conclusions

26I understand that the applicant is dissatisfied with the Decision and also the reasons for her dissatisfaction. However, this does not provide a sufficient basis to reconsider the Decision.

27The applicant has not established the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26 that would lead to reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision. The Request is denied.