HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Katarzyna (Kate) Niang
Applicant
-and-
Lakeshore Gardens Co-operative Homes Inc.
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren
Indexed as: Niang v. Lakeshore Gardens Co-operative Homes Inc.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Katarzyna (Kate) Niang, Applicant
Self-represented
1On October 30, 2014, the applicant filed an Application in which she alleged that the respondent discriminated against her on a number of grounds contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2The applicant is a resident and member of the respondent co-op. In her Application she raised a great number of allegations regarding incidents that have occurred between 2008 and October 2014. The incidents relate to the actions of the respondent’s staff and the members of its board of directors.
3One of the allegations that the applicant made in her Application was that because she is from Poland she is treated differently than members of the respondent whose place of origin in Canada. She states that other members who are from Canada are allowed to use names other than their legal names in correspondence with and in documents provided to the respondent. She alleges that she was not allowed to use the English version of her Polish name. In support of this, she has email correspondence between her and the respondent’s coordinator. In these emails, she signs off using “Kate” and “Cathy” rather than Katarzyna.
4The Tribunal held a Summary Hearing teleconference to consider whether the Application had a reasonable prospect of success. During the teleconference, the applicant was provided with an opportunity to provide more details about the evidence she had or would have to demonstrate that the alleged conduct of the respondent could establish a violation of the Code.
5After hearing submissions from the applicant and the respondent, I issued Decision 2016 HRTO 189 on February 10, 2016. I found that there is no reasonable prospect that the applicant would be in a position to bring forward evidence to establish a violation of the Code in this Application.
6The applicant has filed a Request for Reconsideration of Decision 2016 HRTO 189.
ANALYSIS
7In 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 closed, subject to limited exceptions.
8The circumstances in which a Request for Reconsideration may be granted are set out in Rule 26.5.
9A 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.
10The 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.
11As is evident from the above, reconsideration is a discretionary remedy. That is, while the Tribunal has the power to reconsider its own decisions, it is not obliged to do so. It may decide when reconsideration is advisable, both through the consideration of rules setting out conditions for the exercise of its discretion, and through the application of its discretion on a case-by-case basis.
12The applicant has indicated that it is her position that there are new facts or evidence that could be determinative of the issues that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier; and other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.
13Most of what the applicant has provided as details to support the Request do no more than repeat or expand on the arguments and the evidence that were presented at the hearing with respect to the allegations that relate to the use of her legal name. Much of her detailed reasons for the Request re-state the applicant’s interpretation of the facts and the submissions she made at the hearing. She has not demonstrated that she has new evidence or facts that could not have been obtained earlier.
14The applicant has provided some new statements that relate to some re-organization of the respondent board of directors; however, these alleged events would not be relevant to the allegations she made in the Application.
15The applicant has not detailed factors that outweigh the interest in maintaining the finality of the Decision.
16It appears that the reason that the applicant filed the Request is because she disagrees with the Tribunal’s Decision. As I have indicated above, reconsideration is not an opportunity to reargue the Application.
ORDER
17The Request for Reconsideration is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 2nd day of June, 2016.
“Signed by”
Laurie Letheren
Vice-chair