Adegorite v. York Region District School Board, 2016 HRTO 5

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Oluwagbenga Adegorite Applicant

-and-

York Region District School Board, Lisa Andersen, Dorothy Cammaert, and Ken Thurston Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee Date: January 4, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 5 Indexed as: Adegorite v. York Region District School Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Oluwagbenga Adegorite, Applicant Self-represented

Introduction

1The purpose of this Reconsideration Decision is to address the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, 2015 HRTO 498, which dismissed the Application.

BACKGROUND

2On March 3, 2014, the applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), with this Tribunal, which alleged that the respondents discriminated against him with respect to employment because of his race and sex, and subjected him to a reprisal for having claimed his rights under the Code.

3On December 4, 2014, a hearing took place. On April 21, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Decision, which dismissed the Application on a preliminary basis because it had no reasonable prospect of success.

4On May 19, 2015, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision.

ANALYSIS

5Section 45.7(1) of the Code provides that any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may request that the Tribunal reconsider a final decision in accordance with the Tribunal rules.

6Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that 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.

7The Tribunal has also issued a Practice Direction on Reconsideration to provide guidance to the community on the nature of the reconsideration process. The Practice Direction states, in part:

Decisions of the Tribunal are generally considered final and are not subject to appeal. However, parties may request that the Tribunal reconsider a final decision it has made. Reconsideration is a discretionary remedy; there is no right to have a decision reconsidered by the Tribunal. Generally, the Tribunal will only reconsider a decision where it finds that there are compelling and extraordinary circumstances for doing so and where these circumstances outweigh the public interest in finality of orders and decisions.

Reconsideration is not an appeal.

8In his Request for Reconsideration, the applicant indicated that the Tribunal’s Decision should be reconsidered in accordance with Rule 26.5 c). However, in his submissions in support of his Request, he did not clearly explain how his Request falls within the criteria set out in Rule 26.5 c). Instead, he repeated the same arguments that he made in advance of and at the hearing, and made new arguments that he could have made, but did not make, in advance of and at the hearing. Reconsideration is not available simply because a party disagrees with the Tribunal’s Decision, and it is not an opportunity for a party to reargue the case.

ORDER

9The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.