<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
**B E T W E E N:**
Dorrel Richards
Applicant
-and-
Ryerson University
Respondent
---
**RECONSIDERATION DECISION**
**Adjudicator:** Laurie Letheren
**Date:** November 20, 2015
**Citation:** 2015 HRTO 1575
**Indexed as:** Richards v. Ryerson University
---
<!--mc:close:case-cover-->
## WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Dorrel Richards, Applicant
Self-represented
---
[1] The applicant seeks reconsideration of the Decision [2015 HRTO 1210](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2015/1210) (the “Decision”).
[2] In the Decision the Tribunal determined that it did not have the jurisdiction to hear the Application as it had not been filed within one year of the last alleged incident of discrimination and dismissed the Application.
[3] I find that the applicant has not demonstrated that her reconsideration request meets 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 the Decision.
## ANALYSIS OF THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
[4] In [Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2008/34), 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.
[5] The circumstances in which a Request for Reconsideration may be granted are set out in Rule 26.5.
> 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.
[6] The 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.
[7] As is evident from the above, reconsideration is a discretionary remedy. That is, while the Tribunal has the power to 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.
[8] The applicant’s Request for Reconsideration asserts that: there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier; the decision is in conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance; and other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.
[9] The applicant does not indicate what new evidence she has that could be determinative of the case and that she could not have reasonably obtained earlier. Although she submitted a number of documents, they all appear to have been in her possession or readily available to her at the time the Tribunal considered the delay issue and the applicant does not suggest otherwise. In addition, these documents would not have been determinative of the issue of delay.
[10] The applicant does not explain how the Decision is in conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure, which I am satisfied it is not. Nor does she identify any other factors that exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.
[11] The submissions repeat the arguments made during the summary hearing and restate a number of the allegations that were set out in the narrative of her Application and Reply.
[12] It is apparent that the reason the applicant has filed the Request for Reconsideration is that she disagrees with my Decision. As I have indicated above, reconsideration is not an opportunity to reargue a case.
## ORDER
[13] The Request for Reconsideration is denied.
<!--mc:open:case-tail-->
Dated at Toronto, this 20th day of November, 2015.
“Signed by”
_________________________________
Laurie Letheren
Vice-chair
<!--mc:close:case-tail-->
minicounsel