HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Rigaud Bastien
Applicant
-and-
York University
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Josée Bouchard
Indexed as: Bastien v. York University
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Rigaud Bastien, Applicant
Self-represented
Introduction
1On January 5, 2016, the Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, 2016 HRTO 11 (“the Decision”), dismissing the Application. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision.
2The Application alleged discrimination with respect to educational services because of sexual orientation, race and disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
3The Request for Reconsideration (“Request”) was filed on October 18, 2017, more than 21 months after the Decision. The Request provides the following reasons why the Tribunal should reconsider its Decision:
The party seeking reconsideration was entitled to but, through no fault of its own, did not receive notice of the proceeding or a hearing.
4The applicant suggests that he never received notice of his right to request reconsideration within 30 days of the Decision. He suggests that he is a person with a disability who did not have a chance to be heard. He also argues that all the respondent’s documents were filed in English while his were filed in French.
5Rule 26.4 of the Rules of Procedure states “A party who has been served with a Request for Reconsideration need not file a response with the Tribunal unless the Tribunal directs that a response is required”. The Tribunal did not direct the respondent to file a response.
THE LAW
6Section 45.7 of the Code provides the Tribunal with authority to reconsider its decisions. Further to its power to make rules, the Tribunal has issued Rules governing Requests for Reconsideration.
7Most relevant to this Reconsideration 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
26.5.1 A Request for Reconsideration made more than 30 days following the Decision will not be granted unless the Tribunal determines that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay.
[emphasis added]
8Rule 26.5 provides that 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;
(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;
(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 and orders.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
9The Tribunal may deny a request for reconsideration on the basis of delay alone. See der von Felix v. International Financial Data Services (Canada), 2010 HRTO 362 and Liu v. Country Herbs, 2011 HRTO 1166.
10The applicant filed his request for reconsideration approximately 21 months after the Decision was issued and about 20 months beyond the time required for filing a reconsideration request. The applicant states that he did not receive notice of the timeline to file a reconsideration request. It is not the Tribunal’s practice to notify parties of the timeline to request reconsideration.
11The Tribunal has repeatedly found that ignorance of the law is not a good faith explanation for the delay: Imrie-Howlett v. Peel District School Board, 2009 HRTO 1339; Desauliniers v. Canadian Auto Workers, 2009 HRTO 1743; Winston v. University Health Network, 2011 HRTO 1648.
12The applicant states in his request for reconsideration that he has a disability. However, he does not provide particulars about his disability or how his alleged disability affected his ability to file the request for reconsideration in a timely manner.
13Finally, the applicant notes that the respondent filed its documents in English while he filed in French. The applicant does not explain the relevance of this to his request for reconsideration. The Social Justice Tribunals Ontario’s French Language Services Policy (“the Policy”) provides that parties may file pleadings in French or English and the Tribunal does not translate documents provided by a party. The practice of the Tribunal is consistent with the Policy.
14I find that even if the request had been made in a timely manner, the grounds for seeking reconsideration do not meet the Rule 26 factors as set out above. Accordingly, the reconsideration request is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 6th day of December, 2017.
“Signed by”
Josée Bouchard
Vice-chair