Black v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2016 HRTO 1518

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

James Black

Applicant

-and-

Ontario College of Teachers

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: November 28, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1518

Indexed as: Black v. Ontario College of Teachers

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

James Black, Applicant

Self-represented

Ontario College of Teachers, Respondent

Mira Novek, Counsel

Introduction

1The applicant seeks reconsideration of the Decision, 2016 HRTO 1233, 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

1In his Application, the applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against him based on race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin, creed, sex, family status, record of offences, and association with a person covered by a Code ground. He also alleged that the respondent reprised against him contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant made a wide array of allegations in his Application regarding incidents involving many different people which took place over an eleven year period. One of his primary allegations was that the Ontario College of Teachers (“College”) and other entities within the educational system in Ontario do not do enough to prevent and respond to child abuse and racism in schools. He also alleged that the College had reprised against him for speaking out on the issues of child abuse and racism within the educational system. Finally, the applicant made a number of allegations of discrimination against other teachers and argued that the College was liable for the actions of these individuals because these teachers are members of the College.

2After holding a summary/preliminary hearing, I dismissed the applicant’s allegations relating to incidents prior to 2014 as untimely. I dismissed his allegations regarding the reprimand he received in 2014 on the basis that they had no reasonable prospect of success under the Code.

Applicable Principles relating to reconsideration

3In 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.

4The 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

5The applicant raised two grounds that he believes support reconsideration of my Decision.

6First, he alleged that the respondent withheld information form him that was relevant to the summary/preliminary hearing. According to the applicant, the respondent sent copies of documents to the wrong address. The summary/preliminary hearing in was scheduled to be held by teleconference on September 8, 2016. On September 6, 2016, I issued a Case Assessment Direction advising the parties that, in the teleconference, I would ask them to address the impact of s. 48(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c. 12 on the evidence that could be relied upon in this proceeding.

7On September 6, 2016, the respondent emailed the Tribunal and the applicant a supplementary brief of authorities which included copies of three Tribunal decisions as well as a summary of its submissions in favour of dismissing the Application. In his Application, the applicant indicated that the best way to send information to him was by e-mail. The applicant did not raise any issue in the teleconference about not having received the respondent’s materials. In any event, I do not agree that any prejudice was caused to the applicant by not having a copy of the materials. The summary of submissions was simply a chart summarizing the position the respondent advanced on each of the issues at the summary/preliminary hearing. As well, in the hearing, the applicant had a full opportunity to respond to the respondent’s submissions on the application of s. of s. 48(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act. I do not agree that not having a copy of the three decisions contained in the respondent’s supplementary brief impeded the applicant from making his submission that this section should not apply in this case.

8As a second ground for reconsideration, the applicant in effect seeks to reargue his case by raising many of the same arguments he made in the summary/preliminary hearing. As noted above, a reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue one’s case. I do not agree with the applicant that the Decision is in conflict with established caselaw or Tribunal procedure or that factors exist in this case that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

ORDER

9For the above reasons, the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration is denied.