Yvonne Sookdeo v. Toronto District School Board and Karen Cannata, 2016 HRTO 197

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Yvonne Sookdeo

Applicant

-and-

Toronto District School Board and Karen Cannata

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: February 11, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 197

Indexed as: Sookdeo v. Toronto District School Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Yvonne Sookdeo, Applicant

Self-represented

1This Reconsideration Decision addresses the applicant’s request to add York University as a respondent to this Application.

2By Application filed January 21, 2015, the applicant alleged that the respondents discriminated against her because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, disability and age contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). She also alleged that the respondents reprised against her within the meaning of the Code. The applicant is, or was, a student in the Bachelor of Education program at York University. She named Smithfield Middle School and her mentor teacher as respondents to the Application. In her Application, she alleged that these respondents discriminated against her when they terminated her placement at Smithfield Middle School. Her Application is focused on allegations against the personal respondent who was her mentor teacher during her placement at Smithfield Middle School.

Decision Being challenged

3In my Interim Decision I denied the applicant’s request to add York University as a respondent to her Application and to add allegations against York University. The applicant did not make any allegations against York University in her Application. In my Interim Decision, I found that the applicant was in effect attempting to raise new allegations relating to decisions and/or events that occurred more than a year before her RFOP. If she had sought to file a new Application against York University in relation to these new allegations at the time that she filed her RFOP, her Application would have been dismissed as untimely under s. 34(1) of the Code. I found that the effect of allowing the applicant to add York University as a respondent at this stage would be to permit the use of the RFOP process to circumvent the time limits set out in s. 34(1) of the Code to raise new, separate and untimely allegations against this third party respondent. For this reason, I denied her request to add York University as a respondent.

Applicable Principles

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 completed and final, 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.

THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

6The applicant indicated that she was seeking reconsideration under Rule 26.5(a) because there were new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier. The applicant argued that York University should be added as a respondent due to the harm she has suffered as a result of what she alleges to be race and age-related discrimination by York University. The applicant submits that the fact that she only sought to make her allegations against York University more than a year after the alleged incidents should not be determinative due to the effects on her of the University’s alleged conduct.

7In my view, none of the new information filed by the applicant alters the reasoning or conclusions in my Interim Decision. In fact, materials filed by the applicant in support of her Request for Reconsideration indicate that she was advised as early as June 2014 that if she wished to pursue any discrimination claims, she should contact a communication legal organization or the Tribunal for information. The applicant has not provided any explanation for her delay until December 2015 in seeking to add York University as a respondent to her Application and to add allegations against York University to the Application. In the circumstances, I find that the applicant has not provided any information that would cause me to alter the findings in my Interim Decision.

Order

8For the reasons set out above, the applicant’s request for reconsideration is denied.

9I am not seized.