Alexander v. Toronto District School Board, 2015 HRTO 72

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Samuel Alexander

Applicant

-and-

Toronto District School Board, Tania Bloomfield, Jonathan Cohen, Davina Blenman, Zoraida Van Ael, Nina Sengupta, Christine MacDonell and Sarah Hicks

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume

Date: January 19, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 72

Indexed as: Alexander v. Toronto District School Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Samuel Alexander, Applicant

Self-represented

1The applicant seeks reconsideration of the Decision, 2014 HRTO 1060, dismissing his Application.

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 Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (“Rules”) that would cause me to reconsider my Decision.

The Decision being challenged

3In the Decision, I found that the applicant’s testimony and documents were insufficient to permit the hearing to continue, a decision which was based in part on the fact that the applicant was unable to point to evidence, beyond his own assumptions and beliefs, which would support his allegations of discrimination against the respondents.

Applicable Principles relating to reconsideration

4In 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 closed, subject to limited exceptions.

5The 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.

Analysis of the ReQuest for Reconsideration

6In his Request for Reconsideration, the applicant states that the Tribunal should reconsider its decision. The reasons set out in his Request for Reconsideration take the form of a response to each of the paragraphs (or a group of paragraphs) of my Decision. The applicant provides an extensive and detailed response to my Decision. He takes issue with my findings of fact, analysis, interim decisions and my decision to bring this hearing to a conclusion without requiring the respondents to testify.

7Fundamentally the applicant disagrees with my Decision. As I have indicated above, the Tribunal’s reconsideration power is discretionary and does not represent an opportunity for the applicant to reargue his case.

ORDER

8I deny the Request for Reconsideration for the reasons set out above.