Giannias v. Toronto District School Board, 2015 HRTO 1570

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Nikoloas Giannias Applicant

-and-

Toronto District School Board Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: November 19, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1570

Indexed as: Giannias v. Toronto District School Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Nikoloas Giannias, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1The applicant seeks reconsideration of my Decision dated November 1, 2015, 2015 HRTO 1535, dismissing his Application as having no reasonable prospect of success.

2For the reasons set out below, I find that the applicant has not established the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26.5 of the Tribunals Rules of Procedure (“Rules”) that would cause me to reconsider my Decision.

The Decision being challenged

3The applicant alleged that the respondent reprised against him contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990 c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). In particular, he alleged that the Principal and Vice-Principal of his school undertook various actions against him after he reported that one of his colleagues had engaged in improper conduct towards a student.

4I dismissed the Application following a summary hearing held under Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules. I found that, even if I accepted the facts put forward by the applicant as true and provable, he failed to provide any information that could reasonably establish a reprisal as that term is specifically defined under s. 8 of the Code. The applicant claimed that the respondent reprised against him for reporting his colleague. Any retaliation for reporting his colleague is not covered by the reprisal protections contained in the Code.

Applicable Principles

5In Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 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 completed and final, 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.

THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

7The applicant seeks reconsideration under Rules 26.5(a), (c) and (d). In his Request for Reconsideration, the applicant repeats many of the same sorts of arguments he made at the summary hearing. He claimed that his principal bullied him out of the workplace, disclosed confidential e-mails via the staff room printer and tried to intimidate him after the incident involving his colleague. The applicant attached to his decision various documents including a copy of a grievance filed by his union on a separate issue and various other documents relating to alleged bullying and also the incident involving his colleague.

Analysis

8As noted above, I am dismissing the Request for Reconsideration as the applicant has failed to establish the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules that might lead to reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision.

9The applicant has not raised any “new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier”. All of the alleged facts contained in his Request for Reconsideration were previously raised in the Application and/or in the summary hearing or could have been obtained earlier. Even if I were to take these alleged facts into account, they do not support a case of reprisal under the Code.

10As made very clear at paras 8-10 of my initial Decision:

There exists a common misconception that the Code protects against all forms of reprisal or retaliation. This is inaccurate. The reprisal protections in the Code protect against reprisals for having claimed and enforced rights under the Code.

Section 8 sets out the Code’s protections against reprisal. It states as follows:

Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act, to institute and participate in proceedings under this Act and to refuse to infringe a right of another person under this Act, without reprisal or threat of reprisal for so doing.

The applicant claimed that the respondent reprised against him for reporting his colleague. When I asked him whether he had ever claimed or enforced a right under the Code prior to the events set out in his Application, he confirmed that he had not. There was also no suggestion that the applicant had refused to infringe the Code rights of any other person. Therefore, there is no reasonable prospect that the applicant will be able to make out a claim of reprisal as that term is defined under the Code. His claim is one of general retaliation for reporting his colleague’s conduct. The Code does not protect against such general forms of retaliation.

11Nothing in the new information produced by the applicant alters this conclusion.

12The applicant also has failed to show that the Decision is “in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance” as required under Rule 26.5(c). He also has not shown that “other factors exist that…outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions” as set out in Rule 26.5(d).

13The Code does not provide general protections against unfairness nor does it provide general protections against forms of retaliation that are unconnected to the specific protections found in s. 8 of the Code described above. The Application has no reasonable prospect of making out a reprisal under the Code. The applicant has not claimed, nor has he provided any information that would suggest, that the retaliation he claims to have experienced was carried out against him because he claimed and enforced rights under the Code, instituted or participated in proceedings under the Code or refused to infringe a right of another person under the Code. The applicant’s claim is that the principal and vice-principal of his school are retaliating against him, bullying him and treating him unfairly for reporting the incident involving his colleague. Such actions are not covered by the reprisal protections contained in the Code.

Order

14For the above reasons, the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.