Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Georgina Jefic Applicant
-and-
Algonquin & Lakeshore Catholic District School Board and The Algonquin-Lakeshore Unit of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association Respondents
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott
Indexed as: Jefic v. Algonquin & Lakeshore Catholic District School Board
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Georgina Jefic, Applicant
Self-represented
Introduction
1This Decision addresses a Request for Reconsideration filed by the applicant in relation to the Tribunal’s Decision 2016 HRTO 1244, dated September 22, 2016, which dismissed the Application against the respondent Algonquin & Lakeshore Catholic District School Board (the “School Board”) because it was untimely and against the respondent The Algonquin-Lakeshore Unit of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association (the “Union”) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. The Tribunal dismissed the allegations against the Union because they involved the Union’s failure to represent the applicant.
2On October 21, 2016, the applicant filed an appeal of the Decision.
3On November 1, 2016, the applicant was advised that the Tribunal does not have an appeal process and that if she disagreed with the Decision, she could file a Request for Reconsideration. The applicant filed her Request for Reconsideration on November 8, 2016. In that Request, she asserts 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 that other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.
analysis
Test for Reconsideration
4Under section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 (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.
Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration
7The applicant’s Request for Reconsideration relates to the Tribunal’s decision to dismiss the applicant’s allegations against the Union. More specifically, the applicant complains about:
a. the applicant’s longstanding attempts to get assistance from the Union and its failure to represent the applicant;
b. advice given by the Union regarding the applicant’s ability to represent herself and suggesting to the applicant that it would represent her;
c. the Union’s failure to advise the applicant of the deadline to file the Application;
d. The applicant’s belief that as long as she was pursuing her case with the Union, her case would not be late before any court.
None of these assertions involves a ground of discrimination under the Code.
8The Tribunal dealt with the applicant’s complaint against the Union in the Decision. The Tribunal held the Union’s decision to not represent the applicant could not proceed because the applicant had not alleged the decision was influenced by a prohibited ground of discrimination. The Tribunal affirmed its well established jurisprudence that it is not discrimination for a union to decide not to represent a member unless the reason for doing so was based on one of the grounds in the Code. For this reason, the Tribunal held the allegations had no reasonable prospect of success. The Tribunal noted in the Decision that the applicant had filed a breach of duty of fair representation complaint against the Union with the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
9In the Request for Reconsideration, the applicant states the Tribunal failed to address her reasons for delay. The issue of delay was not relevant to the Tribunal’s decision to dismiss the allegations against the Union. Those allegations were dismissed because it is not discriminatory for a union to refuse to represent a member. This is why the allegations had no reasonable prospect of success.
10The applicant’s Request for Reconsideration is essentially an appeal of the Decision. The applicant excerpts specific findings in the decision and provides arguments as to why those findings of fact and law are incorrect. The Reconsideration process cannot be used in this way. The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration is clear that reconsideration is not an appeal. It is for this reason that the Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.
ORDER
11The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 5^th^ day of December, 2016.
“Signed