HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Fatoumata Keita
Applicant
-and-
Qualification Evaluation Council of Ontario and Ken Collins
Respondents
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Keita v. Qualification Evaluation Council of Ontario
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Fatoumata Keita, Applicant
Self-represented
1On July 16, 2014 the Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, 2014 HRTO 1039, dismissing the Application. The applicant has requested that the Tribunal reconsider its Decision. The respondents have not been directed to file a response to the applicant’s Reconsideration request.
THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
2The Request for Reconsideration provides a number of reasons why the Tribunal should reconsider its Decision, including that:
a. The applicant asserts that I am biased against her because she did not obtain her credentials in Canada;
b. That the Tribunal should conduct an inquiry to determine whether the applicant’s place of origin factored into the respondent’s determination that her average was inferior to a B-; and
c. That there may have been a conflict of interest because the president of the association of French language teachers is also the chair of the Affiliates Committee.
Bias
3The legal principles related to reasonable apprehension of bias were set out by De Grandpré J. in Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy Board, 1976 CanLII 2 (SCC), [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369, at p. 394:
. . . the apprehension of bias must be a reasonable one, held by reasonable and right minded persons, applying themselves to the question and obtaining thereon the required information. In the words of the Court of Appeal, that test is “what would an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically – and having thought the matter through – conclude. Would he think that it is more likely than not that [the decision-maker], whether consciously or unconsciously, would not decide fairly.
4The applicant provides no actual details or particulars to support her allegation of bias. At best, the applicant appears to rely on the general fact that I dismissed the Application and that she disagrees with the Final Decision I issued; neither of which gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.
Reconsideration
5Under 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.
45.7(1) Any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may request that the Tribunal reconsider its decision in accordance with the Tribunal rules.
(2) Upon request under subsection (1) or on its own motion, the Tribunal may reconsider its decision in accordance with its rules.
6The Tribunal has issued Rules governing such requests as well as a Practice Direction to provide guidance to the community on the Tribunal’s exercise of its reconsideration powers (Practice Direction on Reconsideration, January 2008 amended June 2008). Most relevant to this Decision is Rule 26 which 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.
7As is evident from the above, reconsideration is a discretionary remedy. That is, while the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to reopen and reconsider its own decisions, it is not obliged to do so. It may decide when reconsideration is advisable, both through the promulgation of rules setting out conditions for the exercise of its discretion, and through the application of its discretion on a case-by-case basis.
8I find that the applicant has not met the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration. In support of its Request, the applicant essentially repeats arguments made orally before the Tribunal. A request for reconsideration is not an opportunity to restate or re-argue a position already advanced and considered.
9It is not the role of the Tribunal to conduct inquiries but in the context of a summary hearing the applicant must propose some evidence to link adverse treatment to a prohibited ground. The applicant’s submissions are entirely speculative in nature and she has failed to point to any facts or evidence which could link any of the events that she complains of in her Application to a prohibited ground under the Code.
10I find that the applicant has not met the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration. Though I understand that the applicant is dissatisfied with the Final Decision she has provided no basis or any support for her assertion that the Final Decision should be reconsidered.
ORDER
11The Request to reconsider the Decision is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 5^th^ day of January, 2015.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair