Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Robin Royeton
Applicant
-and-
Ontario Principals’ Council and Ian McFarlane
Respondents
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Brian Cook
Indexed as: Royeton v. Ontario Principals’ Council
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Robin Royeton, Applicant
Cecil Norman, Paralegal
Reasons for Decision
1The applicant has filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision 2015 HRTO 1332.
2The Decision followed a Summary Hearing to determine if the Application should be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success. The organizational respondent is a vocational association. The Decision concluded:
In my view, the applicant has not identified evidence that is available that would show that the respondents directly discriminated against her. In my view, the allegations about these respondents relate to an alleged failure to represent her to the extent that she believed should be provided. As noted earlier, the Tribunal has consistently held that the failure or refusal by a vocational association to take forward a human rights issue, is not, in and of itself, a breach of the Code.
3In the Reconsideration Request (“the Request”), the applicant indicates that she does not agree that the allegations against the respondents concern a failure or refusal to take forward a human rights issue.
4According to the Request, the applicant believes that the respondents discriminated against her in the manner that she received services from the respondents. The Request indicates that if the Application were allowed to go to a full hearing, the applicant would be able to provide evidence of discrimination including “testimonial evidence, documentary evidence and medical evidence”. The Request indicates that this evidence was not identified during the summary hearing because, due to her medical condition, she was unable to provide instructions to her representative.
5The Request notes that prior to the hearing, the applicant had provided a medical note from her family doctor indicating that the applicant was experiencing significant anxiety which was impacting her ability to function and that there were medical concerns about her ability to testify “at the upcoming trial”. At the time, the applicant had another Application which was scheduled for a hearing and at which she would be expected to testify. That hearing was adjourned by the Tribunal on the basis of the note. The summary hearing was not adjourned, because, as explained in a Case Assessment Direction dated August 24, 2015, the applicant would not be required to testify at the summary hearing and that her representative could make submissions on her behalf.
6As noted in an earlier Case Assessment Direction, dated June 17, 2015, the Tribunal does not usually hear testimony at a summary hearing. Instead, the purpose of the summary hearing is to allow the applicant to clarify the nature of the allegations and to identify the evidence that would be available to support those allegations if the Application were to go ahead to a full hearing.
7The information provided by the applicant in advance of the summary hearing indicated that she might not be able to testify at a hearing. There was no suggestion that she was also unable to speak to her representative to tell him what evidence she had or would be available to support her allegations that the respondents discriminated against her, in addition to the allegations that they failed to adequately represent her or pursue her allegations about her employer.
8According to the Request, the applicant does have such evidence. However, apart from an assertion that the applicant would testify about the alleged discrimination, the Request does not disclose what this evidence is. According to the Request, the applicant also has documents that she thinks will prove the allegation of discrimination but these have also not been disclosed.
9The Request does not explain why this information has still not been identified, but only indicates that it will be available if the Application proceeds to a full hearing.
10Under 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.
11The Tribunal has issued Rules governing such requests. Rule 26 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.
12The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration begins with the following statements:
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.
13In this case, I find that an assertion in a Request to Reconsider that evidence will be available to support the allegations of discrimination, without disclosure of what this evidence will actually be, is not a basis to grant a request for reconsideration under the Tribunal’s Rules. For this reason, the Request is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 13th day of November, 2015.
“Signed by”
Brian Cook
Vice-chair