Sharma v. Peel District School Board, 2016 HRTO 1168

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ruchi Sharma

Applicant

-and-

Peel District School Board and Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario - Peel Elementary Teachers Local

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott

Date: September 6, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1168

Indexed as: Sharma v. Peel District School Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Ruchi Sharma, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1This Decision addresses a Request for Reconsideration filed by the applicant in relation to the Tribunal’s Decision 2016 HRTO 735, dated May 30, 2016, which dismissed the Application as an abuse of process.

2In the Abuse of Process Decision, I held the applicant’s conduct prevented me from exercising my statutory mandate to deal with the Application in a fair, just and expeditious manner and to continue in these circumstances would put the administration of justice into disrepute. This finding is more fully explained at paragraph 44 of that decision:

The applicant has persistently and repeatedly disregarded the Tribunal’s rulings because of her preoccupation with the filings in this matter and her belief the respondents, and perhaps the Tribunal, have engaged in wrongdoing in this regard. This preoccupation has caused her to make spurious claims against opposing counsel and Tribunal staff, to request a police investigation, and an investigation by the Attorney General. It has resulted in requests to add parties that have nothing to do with the allegations of discrimination, in order to ferret out this unsubstantiated wrongdoing. Her preoccupation has derailed the proceeding to the extent that it has become manifestly unfair to the respondents and has prevented me from exercising my statutory mandate to deal with the Application in a fair, just and expeditious manner. To continue in these circumstances would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. For these reasons, the Application is dismissed as an abuse of process.

3On June 28, 2016, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision.

analysis

Test for Reconsideration

4Under 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.

5The Tribunal has issued Rules governing such requests as well as a Practice Direction to provide guidance on the Tribunal’s exercise of its reconsideration powers. Rule 26 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states:

26.1 Any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within 30 days from 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.

6The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration states reconsideration is a discretionary remedy; there is no right to have a decision reconsidered by the Tribunal. It affirms that reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to change the way he or she presented their case.

Grounds for Reconsideration

7The applicant relies on all four grounds set out in Rule 26.5. The applicant summarizes the basis for her Reconsideration Request at paragraph 3:

The decision made on May 30th, 2016 by Vice Chair Jennifer Scott is not in line with public interest and is unconstitutional as it impacts my charter rights to a fair trial. It sheds light onto the political access that PDSB and EFTO have within Ontario and at the federal level that allow my charter rights to be trampled on through fraudulent filing issues, general questioning during the hearing, incorrect info listed on , not allowing me to provide evidence during the preliminary hearing or the phone hearing on May 6th, 2016, issues with hearing dates as well as alleged misrepresentation of staff as well as misleading information provided by the respondents (PDSB and EFTO) throughout this HRTO process. This decision doesn’t just contradict case law, but also undermines constitutional laws of Canada and for that reason I am requesting that it be re-examined by the HRTO.

8The applicant repeats many of the same allegations that she has made throughout this proceeding, including concerns relating to how material was filed by respondents’ counsel, misrepresentation of Tribunal staff, and misleading information by the respondents. These allegations formed part of the reason as to why the applicant’s conduct was determined to be an abuse of the Tribunal’s process. They were addressed in the Abuse of Process Decision and will not be addressed here. Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for the applicant to re-argue her case.

9In the Request for Reconsideration, the applicant makes a number of additional allegations.

10The applicant complains about the rescheduling of the in-person hearing from April 25 and 26 to May 3 and 6, 2016. She complains further about converting the in-person hearing on May 3 and 6 to a hearing by conference call on May 6 to determine whether the Application should be dismissed as an abuse of process because of the applicant’s conduct.

11The applicant received notice of the change in hearing dates. She also received a Case Assessment Direction dated April 28, 2016 explaining the purpose of the May 6 hearing. The applicant attended the summary hearing on May 6, 2016. The applicant questions whether hearings took place on the cancelled dates. I can assure the applicant that the only hearing that took place was on May 6, 2016.

12The applicant complains that she was unable to give evidence during the hearing on May 6, 2016. The applicant was given a full opportunity to provide an explanation for her conduct during the hearing and to make submissions on whether it constituted an abuse of process.

13The applicant complains that I asked counsel for the Peel District School Board a question and did not ask her the same question. I did ask counsel a question relating to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. This question was asked during his oral submissions. There is nothing unfair about asking counsel questions during their submissions in order to clarify their positions. There is no requirement to ask all parties the same question.

14The applicant complains further that I was the only Vice-chair assigned to this file. The applicant is correct about this. I was assigned this file early on in the process. It is part of the Tribunal’s practice to early assign a Vice-chair to a particular file if it appears that the file may be complex and/or many interim requests have been made by the parties. This ensures the file is handled in an expeditious manner. At the time I assumed carriage of this matter, nine Requests for Orders During Proceedings had been filed by the parties.

15The applicant asserts there was significant delay in dealing with her Application. I disagree. The Application was filed on August 22, 2014. An interim decision on a summary hearing request by the respondent Peel District School Board was released on May 12, 2015. A preliminary hearing was held on July 20, 2015, on the scope of the Application. My decision on the preliminary hearing was released on October 2, 2015. A hearing on abuse of process was held on May 6, 2016. The abuse of process decision was released on May 20, 2016.

16The applicant complains that incorrect information is noted on the preliminary hearing decision dated October 2, 2015 (2015 HRTO 1308) published on. During the abuse of process hearing, the applicant indicated there was an incorrect date on the preliminary hearing decision regarding the date of her meeting with the superintendent. She advised that the meeting took place on September 22, 2014, not September 10 as indicated in the decision. I advised the applicant that the issue on the hearing was whether her conduct amounted to an abuse of the Tribunal’s process. An alleged date error in the preliminary hearing decision is not relevant to this issue.

17None of the issues raised by the applicant meet the test for reconsideration. For the most part, the applicant is attempting to use the reconsideration process to reargue her case. The procedural issues that have been raised by the applicant fail to establish any procedural unfairness with regards to how her Application was dealt with by the Tribunal.

18For these reasons, the applicant’s Reconsideration Request is denied.

decision

19The applicant has failed to meet the test for reconsideration and as such, her Request for Reconsideration is denied.