Borden v. York University, 2016 HRTO 1622

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Kyle Borden

Applicant

-and-

York University and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: December 16, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1622

Indexed as: Borden v. York University

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Kyle Borden, Applicant ) Self-represented

1The applicant has filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision 2016 HRTO 1449.

2Under section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (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.

3The Tribunal has issued Rules governing such requests. Rule 26.5 states:

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.

4In this case, the Request for Reconsideration indicates that the applicant does not agree that the Application should have been dismissed following a summary hearing. He submits that he should have been given an opportunity to present his entire case and objects to the fact that his case was dismissed before he was allowed to do that. He suggests that this happened because the Tribunal applied a different standard because he is a Black applicant. The applicant also objects to the fact that he was not provided with legal counsel. He says that he found the process to be intimidating and confusing. He also believes that the Decision did not accurately reflect his allegations.

5An important purpose of a summary hearing is to determine if an Application has no reasonable prospect of success. If an Application has no reasonable prospect of success, it should be dismissed. It is not fair to the other parties to have to respond to allegations which, even if true, could not support a finding of an infringement of the Code. The Tribunal does not have a different standard or process based on the fact that an applicant is Black, or on any other basis.

6The concerns that the applicant has raised in the Request for Reconsideration about the summary hearing process were also raised at the hearing and were noted in the Decision. The Decision also noted the applicant's request that he be provided with legal counsel and explained that the Tribunal does not do this.

7I appreciate that the applicant does not agree with the summary hearing process or the finding that the Application should be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success. However, the fact that a party is unhappy with a Decision is not a sufficient reason to reconsider a Decision. The Request for Reconsideration does not identify any of the factors in the Tribunal’s Rule regarding requests for reconsideration, and it must be denied on that basis.