HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
T.B., as represented by his litigation guardian A.B., and A.B. on behalf of Y.B. and Yo.B
Applicant
-and-
Conseil des écoles publiques de L’Est de l’Ontario, Stéphane Vachon and Diane Lamoureux
Respondents
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: T.B. v. Conseil des écoles publiques de l’Est de l’Ontario
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
T.B., as represented by his litigation guardian A.B., and A.B. on behalf of Y.B. and Yo.B., Applicants
A.B., Representative, Self-represented
Introduction
1On February 10, 2016 the Tribunal issued Interim Decision, 2016 HRTO 176 which dismissed the Application in part. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider the Interim Decision.
THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
2The Request for Reconsideration provides the following reasons why the Tribunal should reconsider the Interim Decision include:
a. That the Interim Decision is corrupt;
b. That I am part of a conspiracy to deny T.B. access to education;
c. That I did not deal with the case appropriately.
3The respondents were not directed by the Tribunal to respond to the Request for Reconsideration.
THE LAW
4Under section 45.7 of 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 to the community on the Tribunal’s exercise of its reconsideration powers (Practice Direction on Reconsideration, January 2008, last amended April 2014). Most relevant to this Decision is Rule 26 which states:
26.1 Any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within (thirty) 30 days of 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 includes the following statements:
Reconsideration is a discretionary remedy; there is no right to have a decision reconsidered by the HRTO. Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to change the way it presented its case.
7As is evident from the above, reconsideration is a discretionary remedy. That is, while the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to reopen and reconsider its own decisions, it is not obliged to do so. It may decide when reconsideration is advisable, both through the promulgation of rules setting out conditions for the exercise of its discretion, and through the application of its discretion on a case-by-case basis.
8In my view though the decision is not a “final decision” per se, reconsideration is available to the applicant because it disposes of a majority of the allegations in the Application. See Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34 (“Sigrist”).
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
9I find that the applicant has not met the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration.
10In support of its Request, the applicant essentially repeats arguments previously made before the Tribunal with respect to my personal bias and the Tribunal’s institutional bias.
11The applicant accuses the Tribunal of institutional bias and has reviewed a number of my decisions and Mr. Marshall’s cases. The applicant alleges that if I am not the assigned adjudicator “usually Mr. Marshall is losing the case”. The applicant also states that one of Mr. Marshall’s junior lawyers has infiltrated the Tribunal’s Practice Advisory Committee to influence the Tribunal. The applicant also believes that another Vice-chair (who had no previous involvement with this Application) has been appointed to the same federal board as the Vice-chair who referred this case to a summary hearing. The applicant alleges that the respondents are using their influence to remove or promote any Vice-chairs that threaten Mr. Marshall’s cases.
Decision
12It is important to note that the issues raised in this Request were the subject of submissions before the Tribunal, and dealt with in its Decision. In Sigrist, above, the Tribunal stated that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case. I find that the submissions in this Request amount to additional arguments on issues already canvassed before the Tribunal. I have already fully addressed the applicant’s allegations of bias. I do not find it necessary to address these allegations, which I have noted are escalating to include allegations of institutional bias.
13While the applicant clearly disagrees with the conclusions of the Tribunal, I am satisfied that its submissions on this Request do not establish that the Tribunal should reconsider its Interim Decision.
Next steps
14A Notice of hearing shall follow from the Registrar setting out the date and location.
15I am not seized of this case.
Dated at Toronto, this 27^th^ day of May, 2016.
“Signed By”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair