Patrice Chisholm v. York Catholic District School Board and Casey Cabral, 2016 HRTO 998

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Patrice Chisholm

Applicant

-and-

York Catholic District School Board and Casey Cabral

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: July 28, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 998

Indexed as: Chisholm v. York Catholic District School Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Patrice Chisholm, Applicant

Self-represented

1The applicant requests Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s June 1, 2016 Decision, 2016 HRTO 752 dismissing this Application.

2The circumstances in which Reconsideration may be granted are set out in Rule 26.5:

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.

3The applicant relies upon Rules 26.5 (a) and (d) filed a Request for Reconsideration (the “Request”) on July 1, 2016.

4The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration begins with the following statements:

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 or an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of its case. [Emphasis added.]

5The Tribunal dismissed the Application on the basis that she had failed to establish discrimination on the balance of probabilities. The applicant takes issue with what she believes to be omissions from the Decision, but it is not clear why addressing these issues would be in any way determinative of the issues before me. She also asks me to review certain statements made in the Decision without providing the basis for the request to review.

6The applicant has not raised compelling or extraordinary circumstances on which the Tribunal might base a reconsideration. Her submissions do not identify factors that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

7Moreover, the applicant has failed to identify the new facts or evidence that were not reasonably available to her that might be determinative of the case. She alleges that a paralegal she retained kept a copy of her notes and file for a period of one week, but does not say why that constitutes a new fact or evidence or why this fact might be determinative of the case. The hearing in this matter commenced on November 26, 2015 and the applicant had ample time to retain a representative and prepare before the hearing concluded on April 19, 2016.

8The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.