HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Y.B.
Applicant
-and-
Conseil des écoles publiques de l'Est de l'Ontario,
Stéphane Vachon and Diane Lamoureux
Respondents
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Jennifer Khurana
Indexed as: Y.B. v. Conseil des écoles publiques de l'Est de l'Ontario
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Y.B., Applicant
A.B., Representative
1The Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, 2017 HRTO 492, dismissing the Application. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision. The respondents have not been directed to file a response to the applicant’s Reconsideration request.
2For the reasons set out below, the applicant’s request is dismissed.
THE LAW
3Under 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 of Procedure (“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.
4The circumstances in which a Request for Reconsideration may be granted are set out in Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules:
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.
5As set out in the Tribunal’s Practice Direction, 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. Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to change the way it presented its case. 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.
THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
6The applicant seeks reconsideration under Rules 26.5(a), (c) and (d).
7In his Request, under Rule 26.5(a), the applicant submits that the Tribunal should reconsider the Decision because a former Vice-chair of this Tribunal, Genevieve Debané, should have heard the Application because she made other decisions in the Application. The applicant alleges that I “confiscated” this Application and others filed by the applicant’s family by showing up at the hearing, that Vice-chair Debané was seized of the Application and that the departure of the previous Vice-chair assigned to this Application was a tactic to protect corruption at the Tribunal. The applicant also submits that I had a biased relationship with counsel for the respondent, Paul Marshall, and that I was appointed to carry on the Tribunal’s biased business after Vice-chair Debané issued a “corrupt decision”. He makes several allegations regarding my behaviour and conduct of the hearing, including that I acted as Mr. Marshall’s secretary, had ex parte communications with Mr. Marshall, that I was rude and disrespectful to the applicant and his family, and that I only stamped Mr. Marshall’s documents.
8With respect to the other grounds for reconsideration, the applicant alleges that Vice-chair Debané and I acted in bad faith in dealing with this Application and others brought by his family members with reference to previous decisions. He claims that I stated at the hearing that I am there for my colleague “lawyers”.
9Finally, the applicant alleges that other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of the Tribunal’s decisions because the Decision will be a major tool for school boards to violate the rights of all vulnerable students in Ontario to basic services. He alleges that I did not understand the long-term effect of my decision on society by my irresponsible, unjustified and biased orders. The applicant also asserts that whenever Mr. Marshall is involved with a file, the Tribunal’s French-speaking adjudicators assigned to hear the Application are accused of bias and lack of impartiality.
10The applicant references paragraph 12 of the Decision in which I state that I